No abstract

An accurate prognostic model is extremely important in severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) for both patient management and research. Clinical prediction models must be validated both internally and externally before they are considered widely applicable. Our aim is to independently externally validate two prediction models, one developed by the Corticosteroid Randomization After Significant Head injury (CRASH) trial investigators, and the other from the International Mission for Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials in Traumatic Brain Injury (IMPACT) group. We used a cohort of 300 patients with severe TBI (Glasgow Coma Score [GCS] ≤8) consecutively admitted to the National Neuroscience Institute (NNI), Singapore, between February 2006 and December 2009. The CRASH models (base and CT) predict 14 day mortality and 6 month unfavorable outcome. The IMPACT models (core, extended, and laboratory) estimate 6 month mortality and unfavorable outcome. Validation was based on measures of discrimination and calibration. Discrimination was assessed using the area under the receiving operating characteristic curve (AUC), and calibration was assessed using the Hosmer-Lemeshow (H-L) goodness-of-fit test and Cox calibration regression analysis. In the NNI database, the overall observed 14 day mortality was 47.7%, and the observed 6 month unfavorable outcome was 71.0%. The CRASH base model and all three IMPACT models gave an underestimate of the observed values in our cohort when used to predict outcome. Using the CRASH CT model, the predicted 14 day mortality of 46.6% approximated the observed outcome, whereas the predicted 6 month unfavorable outcome was an overestimate at 74.8%. Overall, both the CRASH and IMPACT models showed good discrimination, with AUCs ranging from 0.80 to 0.89, and good overall calibration. We conclude that both the CRASH and IMPACT models satisfactorily predicted outcome in our patients with severe TBI.

Treatment techniques and management guidelines for intracranial aneurysms (IAs) have been continually developing and this rapid development has altered treatment decision-making for clinicians. IAs are treated in one of two ways: surgical treatments such as microsurgical clipping with or without bypass techniques, and endovascular methods such as coiling, balloon- or stent-assisted coiling, or intravascular flow diversion and intrasaccular flow disruption. In certain cases, a single approach may be inadequate in completely resolving the IA and successful treatment requires a combination of microsurgical and endovascular techniques, such as in complex aneurysms. The treatment option should be considered based on factors such as age; past medical history; comorbidities; patient preference; aneurysm characteristics such as location, morphology, and size; and finally the operator’s experience. The purpose of this review is to provide practicing neurosurgeons with a summary of the techniques available, and to aid decision-making by highlighting ideal or less ideal cases for a given technique. Next, we illustrate the evolution of techniques to overcome the shortfalls of preceding techniques. At the outset, we emphasize that this decision-making process is dynamic and will be directed by current best scientific evidence, and future technological advances.

No abstract

Fluorescein sodium fluorescence is as accurate as frozen section assessment in confirming sampling of pathological tissue in the stereotactic biopsy of gadolinium-contrast-enhancing brain lesions. Fluorescein sodium fluorescence-guided stereotactic biopsy is a useful addition to the neurosurgical armamentarium.

Carotid-jugular fistula is a rare presentation of arteriovenous fistula. A case of a 60-year-old Chinese man who presented with iatrogenic carotid-jugular fistula with multiple fistulous points was reported. His presenting complaint was a gradually enlarging right pulsatile neck mass complicated by worsening symptoms of congestive cardiac failure. He had recent mitral valve annuloplasty, and a right internal jugular central venous pressure monitor insertion was performed then. Angiography revealed right carotid-jugular fistula with feeders from the external carotid, internal carotid and right vertebral arteries, all draining into the right internal jugular vein. He underwent embolisation twice resulting in transient improvement in clinical symptoms, and surgical resection was later performed in view of residual arteriovenous shunting and gradual clinical deterioration. Following surgery, he was discharged and resumed work as a janitor with no recurrent symptoms for 3 years now. In this report to be added into the literature, we discuss a rare case of iatrogenic carotid-jugular fistula with multiple fistulous points which required embolisation and subsequently surgical resection.

Background: To determine the proportion of patients with colorectal cancer and abnormal immunohistochemistry testing of tumour tissue who were referred to a cancer genetic clinic for genetic counselling and possible germline testing of a blood sample for Lynch syndrome.Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of patients with colorectal cancer and abnormal immunohistochemistry tumour tissue testing from St Vincent's Hospital (between November 2007 and December 2016). Patient list was compared against a state-wide database TrakGene to ascertain the overall referral rate for these patients. Results: Of 216 patients, the total referral rate was 33.8% (n = 73), of which 27.8% (n = 60) were referred to St Vincent's Hospital's Cancer Genetics Service, 6% (n = 13) were referred externally and the remaining 66.2% (n = 143) were not referred. Binomial regression analysis performed displayed that age influenced likelihood of referral, where patients were 7.7% more likely to be referred for every decreasing year in age (P = 0.0004). Some clinicians were 4.3 times more likely to refer patients compared to others (P = 0.002). Conclusion: Suboptimal patient uptake for cancer genetics evaluation was found. Identifying barriers to patient referral should lead to changes that increase patient referrals. This will ensure that patients receive adequate education, counselling and management of Lynch syndrome. It would also allow for the identification of further at-risk relatives for whom preventative strategies can be employed. In addition, identification of relatives not at risk by genetic testing will liberate them from unnecessary colonoscopies. Discussion with the clinicians involved has since allowed for copies of the immunohistochemistry results to be forwarded by the Pathology Department to the Cancer Genetics Unit for checking and follow up with the clinician to ensure that their patients are aware of the result and have been offered referral for cancer genetic evaluation. This process is subject to ongoing audit.

No abstract