Features of the Clinical Course and Prognosis of Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Outcomes

BACKGROUND. Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is one of the most important contemporary health issues. According to the World Health Organization, TBI is one of three leading causes of death in the world. Despite the development and widespread use of neuroimaging tools and instrumental research methods, clinical diagnosis of TBI is preferred. It is especially relevant at the prehospital stage when it is impossible to use instrumental diagnostic methods.

THE AIM OF THE STUDY. To determine the clinical course features and prognosis of treatment outcomes in patients with various types of traumatic brain damage.

MATERIAL AND METHODS. We studied the results of examination and treatment of 100 victims with a severe head injury hospitalized during the first days after receiving an injury and undergoing treatment at the N.V. Sklifosovsky Research Institute in 2008–2017. Depending on the type of brain injury patients were divided into 3 groups: Group 1 — isolated hematoma (n=20), Group 2 — hematomas and injuries of the brain (n=40), Group 3 — injuries of the brain (n=40). All patients underwent neurological examination, CT scan of the brain upon admission and over time within 12 days after trauma. In 30 victims, intracranial pressure (ICP) was monitored.

RESULTS. We revealed features of the dynamics of individual neurological symptoms in patients with different types of brain damage. In patients with isolated hematomas, neurological status was represented mainly with clinic dislocation syndrome and contralateral hematoma hemiparesis, and clinical pattern significantly depended on intracranial hemorrhage. In patients with combination of hematomas and contusions, the neurological status and its dynamics were less dependent on the volume of the hematoma and were mainly determined by contusions of the midline structures of the brain. In patients with brain injuries, neurological status reliably correlated with injuries of midline structures.

CONCLUSION. We revealed significant differences in neurological status, its changes over time and correlation with CT findings in patients with different types of traumatic brain injury.

Authors declare lack of the conflicts of interests.

1. Fleminger S, Ponsford J. Long term outcome after traumatic brain injury. BMJ. 2005; 331(7530):1419–1420. PMID: 16356951. https://doi. org/10.1136/bmj.331.7530.1419

2. World Health Organization. The World health report: 2003: shaping the future. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2003. Available at: https:// www.who.int/whr/2003/en/ [Accessed Oct 22, 2019]

3. Talypov AE. Khirurgicheskoe lechenie tyazheloy cherepno-mozgovoy travmy: dr. med. sci. diss. synopsis . Moscow; 2015. Available at:: http:// www.neurosklif.ru/Text/Thesises/88.pdf [Accessed Oct 22, 2019] (In Russ.)

4. Posner JB, Saper CB, Schiff N, Plum F. Plum and Posner’s Diagnosis of Stupor and Coma. 4th ed. Oxford University Press; 2007.

5. Kleiven S. Why most traumatic brain injuries are not caused by linear acceleration but skull fractures are. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2013;(1):15. PMID: 25022321 https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2013.00015

6. Gennarelli TA, Thibault LE, Adams JH, Graham DI, Thompson CJ, Marcincin RP, et al. Diffuse axonal injury and traumatic coma in the primate. Ann Neurol. 1982;12(6):564–574. PMID: 7159060 https://doi. org/10.1002/ana.410120611

7. Reilly PL. Brain injury: the pathophysiology of the first hours. ‘Talk and Die revisited’. J Clin Neurosci. 2001;8(5):398–403. PMID: 11535003 https://doi.org/10.1054/jocn.2001.0916

8. Potapov AA, Gaytur EI. Biomekhanika i osnovnye zven’ya patogeneza cherepno-mozgovoy travmy. In: Konovalov AN, Likhterman LB, Potapov AA (eds.). Klinicheskoe rukovodstvo po cherepno-mozgovoy travme. Vol.1. Moscow: Antidor Publ.; 1998. pp.152–168. (In Russ.)

9. Krylov VV, Talypov AE, Levchenko OV. (eds.) Khirurgiya tyazheloy cherepno-mozgovoy travmy. Moscow: ABV-press Publ.; 2019. (In Russ.)

10. Adams JH, Graham D., Gennarelli TA. Head injury in man and experimental animals: neuropathology. Acta Neurochir Suppl (Wien). 1983;32:15–30. PMID: 6581702 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091- 4147-2_2

11. Smith DH, Meaney DF, Shull WH. Diffuse axonal injury in head trauma. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2003;18(4):307–316. PMID: 16222127 https:// doi.org/10.1097/00001199-200307000-00003

12. Marshall LF, Gautille T, Klauber M. Eisenberg HM, Jane JA, Luerssen TG, et al. The outcome of severe closed head injury. J Neurosurg. 1991;75(Suppl.):S28–S36. https://doi.org/10.3171/sup.1991.75.1s.0s28

13. Gennarelli TA, Adams JH, Graham DI. Diffuse axonal injury: a new conceptual approach to an old problem. In: Baethmans A, Go KG, Unterberg A. (eds.) Mechanisms of secondary brain damage. New York: Plenum Press; 1986.pp.15–28.