Where a licence is displayed above, please note the terms and conditions of the licence govern your use of this document.When citing, please reference the published version. Take down policyWhile the University of Birmingham exercises care and attention in making items available there are rare occasions when an item has been uploaded in error or has been deemed to be commercially or otherwise sensitive.

Decompressive craniectomy (DC) is an operation where a large section of the skull is removed to accommodate brain swelling. Patients who survive will usually require subsequent reconstruction of the skull using either their own bone or an artificial prosthesis, known as cranioplasty. Cranioplasty restores skull integrity but can also improve neurological function. Standard care following DC consists of the performance of cranioplasty several months later as historically, there was a concern that earlier cranioplasty may increase the risk of infection. However, recent systematic reviews have challenged this and have demonstrated that an early cranioplasty (within three months after DC) may enhance neurological recovery. However, patients are often transferred to a rehabilitation unit following their acute index admission and before their cranioplasty. A better understanding of the pathophysiological effects of cranioplasty and the relationship of timing and complications would enable more focused patient tailored rehabilitation programs, thus maximizing the benefit following cranioplasty. This may maximise recovery potential, possibly resulting in improved functional and cognitive gains, enhancement of quality of life and potentially reducing longer-term care needs. This narrative review aims to update multi-disciplinary team regarding cranioplasty, including its history, pathophysiological consequences on recovery, complications, and important clinical considerations both in the acute and rehabilitation settings.

IMPORTANCETrials often assess primary outcomes of traumatic brain injury at 6 months. Longer-term data are needed to assess outcomes for patients receiving surgical vs medical treatment for traumatic intracranial hypertension. OBJECTIVE To evaluate 24-month outcomes for patients with traumatic intracranial hypertension treated with decompressive craniectomy or standard medical care.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Prespecified secondary analysis of the Randomized Evaluation of Surgery With Craniectomy for Uncontrollable Elevation of Intracranial Pressure (RESCUEicp) randomized clinical trial data was performed for patients with traumatic intracranial hypertension (>25 mm Hg) from 52 centers in 20 countries. Enrollment occurred between January 2004 and March 2014. Data were analyzed between 2018 and 2021. Eligibility criteria were age 10 to 65 years, traumatic brain injury (confirmed via computed tomography), intracranial pressure monitoring, and sustained and refractory elevated intracranial pressure for 1 to 12 hours despite pressure-controlling measures. Exclusion criteria were bilateral fixed and dilated pupils, bleeding diathesis, or unsurvivable injury.INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive a decompressive craniectomy with standard care (surgical group) or to ongoing medical treatment with the option to add barbiturate infusion (medical group). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was measured with the 8-point Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (1 indicates death and 8 denotes upper good recovery), and the 6-to 24-month outcome trajectory was examined. RESULTSThis study enrolled 408 patients: 206 in the surgical group and 202 in the medical group. The mean (SD) age was 32.3 (13.2) and 34.8 (13.7) years, respectively, and the study population was predominantly male (165 [81.7%] and 156 [80.0%], respectively). At 24 months, patients in the surgical group had reduced mortality (61 [33.5%] vs 94 [54.0%]; absolute difference, −20.5 [95% CI, −30.8 to −10.2]) and higher rates of vegetative state (absolute difference, 4.3 [95% CI, 0.0 to 8.6]), lower or upper moderate disability (4.7 [−0.9 to 10.3] vs 2.8 [−4.2 to 9.8]), and lower or upper severe disability (2.2 [−5.4 to 9.8] vs 6.5 [1.8 to 11.2]; χ 2 7 = 24.20, P = .001). For every 100 individualstreatedsurgically,21additionalpatientssurvivedat24months;4wereinavegetativestate, 2 had lower and 7 had upper severe disability, and 5 had lower and 3 had upper moderate disability, respectively. Rates of lower and upper good recovery were similar for the surgical and medical groups (20 [11.0%] vs 19 [10.9%]), and significant differences in net improvement (Ն1 grade) were observed between 6 and 24 months (55 [30.0%] vs 25 [14.0%]; χ 2 2 = 13.27, P = .001).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE At 24 months, patients with surgically treated posttraumatic refractory intracranial hypertension had a sustained reduction in mortality and higher rates of vegetative state, severe disability, and moderate disability. Patients in the surgical group were more likely to...

Background Patient selection for seizure prophylaxis after traumatic brain injury (TBI) and duration of anti-epileptic drug treatment for patients with early post-traumatic seizures (PTS), remain plagued with uncertainty. In early 2017, a collaborative group of neurosurgeons, neurologists, neurointensive care and rehabilitation medicine physicians was formed in the UK with the aim of assessing variability in current practice and gauging the degree of uncertainty to inform the design of future studies. Here we present the results of a survey of clinicians managing patients with TBI in the UK and Ireland. Materials and methods An online survey was developed and piloted. Following approval by the Academic Committee of the Society of British Neurological Surgeons, it was distributed via appropriate electronic mailing lists. Results One hundred and seventeen respondents answered the questionnaire, predominantly neurosurgeons (76%) from 30 (of 32) trauma-receiving hospitals in the UK and Ireland. Fifty-three percent of respondents do not routinely use seizure prophylaxis, but 38% prescribe prophylaxis for one week. Sixty percent feel there is uncertainty regarding the use of seizure prophylaxis, and 71% would participate in further research to address this question. Sixty-two percent of respondents use levetiracetam for treatment of seizures during the acute phase, and 42% continued for a total of 3 months. Overall, 90% were uncertain about the duration of treatment for seizures, and 78% would participate in further research to address this question. Conclusion The survey results demonstrate the variation in practice and uncertainty in both described aspects of management of patients who have suffered a TBI. The majority of respondents would want to participate in future research to help try and address this critical issue, and this shows the importance and relevance of these two clinical questions. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s00701-018-3683-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The proofs will contain queries from the manuscript editor, as well as any queries that may be present in this file. The proof stage will be your next opportunity to make changes; in the meantime, please do not make any changes or send any new material to us.

BackgroundThe incidence of chronic subdural haematoma (CSDH) is increasing. Although surgery remains the mainstay of management for symptomatic patients, uncertainty remains regarding the role of steroids. Hence, the Dex-CSDH trial was launched in the UK in 2015 aiming to determine whether, compared to placebo, dexamethasone can improve the 6-month functional outcome of patients with symptomatic CSDH by reducing the rate of surgical intervention and recurrence rate.Methods and designDex-CSDH is a multi-centre, pragmatic, parallel group, double-blind, randomised trial assessing the clinical utility of a 2-week course of dexamethasone following a CSDH. Seven hundred fifty patients were randomised to either dexamethasone or placebo. The primary outcome is the modified Rankin Scale at 6 months which is dichotomised to favourable (a score of 0–3) versus unfavourable (a score of 4–6).ConclusionsThis paper and the accompanying additional material describe the statistical analysis plan for the trial.Trial registrationISRCTN, ISRCTN80782810. Registered on 7 November 2014. http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN80782810. EudraCT, 2014-004948-35. Registered on 20 March 2015.

Background Major trauma is a leading cause of death and disability in 16–18-year olds in the UK. Since the launch of major trauma centres (MTCs) in 2012 in UK, survival rates have improved on the whole. The aim of this study was to look at the pathways of 16–18-year olds through one MTC and patterns of rehabilitation provision. Material and methods A retrospective case notes review of all trauma patients aged between 16 and 18 years admitted to one MTC between October 2012 and May 2018. Results One hundred forty-seven young people were identified. 67.3% were male with a mean age of 17.1 years. Motor vehicle accidents were the most common cause of injury (59.2%). Thirty-nine percent had a Glasgow Coma Scale at scene >13. Sixty-three percent were admitted to an adult intensive care unit (ICU), 5.4% to paediatric ICU and 31.3% directly to a ward. Admissions to rehabilitation ward came through adult services with no commissioned equivalent in those admitted to paediatrics. Mean length of stay was 18.1 days. 75.5% of patients were discharged home from the MTC. Discussion The majority of young people were admitted on to adult wards and were able to access commissioned services. However, such services do not provide for the specialist needs of young people, with no access to schooling or parent’s accommodation. Those who were admitted to children’s services missed out on commissioned rehabilitation pathways. Conclusion Young people of transition age often fall between services. For the first time, we illustrate injury patterns and the fragmented services seen in this vulnerable patient group.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) remains a leading cause of death and disability worldwide. Motivations for outcome data collection in TBI are threefold: to improve patient outcomes, to facilitate research, and to provide the means and methods for wider injury surveillance. Such data play a pivotal role in population health, and ways to increase the reliability of data collection following TBI should be pursued. As a result, technology-aided follow-up of patients with neurotrauma is on the rise; there is, therefore, a need to describe how such technologies have been used. A scoping review was conducted and reported using the PRISMA extension (PRISMA-ScR). Five electronic databases (Embase, MEDLINE, Global Health, PsycInfo, and Scopus) were searched systematically using keywords derived from the concepts of “telemedicine,” “TBI,” “outcome assessment,” and “patient-generated health data.” Forty studies described follow-up technologies (FUTs) utilizing telephones (52.5%, n = 21), short message service (SMS; 10%, n = 4), smartphones (22.5%, n = 9), videoconferencing (10%, n = 4), digital assistants (2.5%, n = 1), and custom devices (2.5%, n = 1) among cohorts of patients with TBI of varying injury severity. Where reported, clinical facilitators, remote follow-up timing and intervals between sessions, synchronicity of follow-up instances, proxy involvement, outcome measures utilized, and technology evaluation efforts are described. FUTs can aid more temporally sensitive assessments and capture fluctuating sequelae, a benefit of particular relevance to TBI cohorts. However, the evidence base surrounding FUTs remains in its infancy, particularly with respect to large samples, low- and middle-income patient cohorts, and the validation of outcome measures for deployment via such remote technology.