Post-traumatic frontal and parieto-occipital extradural haematomas: a retrospective analysis of 41 patients and review of the literature.

Central European Neurosurgery Pub Date : 2011-11-01 Epub Date: 2011-10-19 DOI:10.1055/s-0031-1286261
V Balik, H Lehto, D Hoza, S Phornsuwannapha, S Toninelli, R Romani, I Sulla, J Hernesniemi
{"title":"Post-traumatic frontal and parieto-occipital extradural haematomas: a retrospective analysis of 41 patients and review of the literature.","authors":"V Balik,&nbsp;H Lehto,&nbsp;D Hoza,&nbsp;S Phornsuwannapha,&nbsp;S Toninelli,&nbsp;R Romani,&nbsp;I Sulla,&nbsp;J Hernesniemi","doi":"10.1055/s-0031-1286261","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The purpose of this study was to analyse the differences between patients with frontal (FEDH) or parieto-occipital (POEDH) epidural haematomas and evaluate possible statistically significant prognostic factors.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>In this retrospective study of a group of 41 patients with a FEDH (17) or POEDH (24 individuals), the authors analysed the influence of gender, age, type of injury, clinical presentation, Glasgow coma scale (GCS) score on admission, radiological findings, and time interval from trauma to surgery on outcomes. A good recovery and moderate disability were considered a \"good\" or \"favourable outcome\", whereas severe disability, a vegetative state or death was a \"poor outcome\".</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the POEDH subgroup, a higher GCS score on admission and a younger age were statistically significant prognostic factors for a better outcome (p=0.006, rs=0.702). In the subgroup of patients with FEDHs, the results were not significant. However, patients with FEDHs more frequently had \"good outcomes\" than members of the POEDH subgroup (88.2 vs. 70.9%). Children (≤ 18 years old) constituted a smaller portion of the POEDH subgroup (12.5%) than those in the FEDH subgroup (41.2%). The evaluation of time intervals between the accident and surgery (≤ 24 h vs. > 24 h) showed no significant influence on outcomes in any of the studied subgroups. However, patients undergoing surgery within 24 h of their injury had a less favourable GCS score on admission than those operated on more than 24 h after their injury. Subacute and chronic clinical courses predominated in patients with a FEDH (10/17 FEDH vs. 11/22 POEDH). Different accompanying intradural lesions occurred in 12 patients of the POEDH subgroup, but only in 2 of the FEDH subgroup (50 vs. 11.8%). However, the presence of such lesions did not significantly deteriorate surgical outcomes in either of the subgroups.</p>","PeriodicalId":51241,"journal":{"name":"Central European Neurosurgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1055/s-0031-1286261","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Central European Neurosurgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1286261","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2011/10/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study was to analyse the differences between patients with frontal (FEDH) or parieto-occipital (POEDH) epidural haematomas and evaluate possible statistically significant prognostic factors.

Material and methods: In this retrospective study of a group of 41 patients with a FEDH (17) or POEDH (24 individuals), the authors analysed the influence of gender, age, type of injury, clinical presentation, Glasgow coma scale (GCS) score on admission, radiological findings, and time interval from trauma to surgery on outcomes. A good recovery and moderate disability were considered a "good" or "favourable outcome", whereas severe disability, a vegetative state or death was a "poor outcome".

Results: In the POEDH subgroup, a higher GCS score on admission and a younger age were statistically significant prognostic factors for a better outcome (p=0.006, rs=0.702). In the subgroup of patients with FEDHs, the results were not significant. However, patients with FEDHs more frequently had "good outcomes" than members of the POEDH subgroup (88.2 vs. 70.9%). Children (≤ 18 years old) constituted a smaller portion of the POEDH subgroup (12.5%) than those in the FEDH subgroup (41.2%). The evaluation of time intervals between the accident and surgery (≤ 24 h vs. > 24 h) showed no significant influence on outcomes in any of the studied subgroups. However, patients undergoing surgery within 24 h of their injury had a less favourable GCS score on admission than those operated on more than 24 h after their injury. Subacute and chronic clinical courses predominated in patients with a FEDH (10/17 FEDH vs. 11/22 POEDH). Different accompanying intradural lesions occurred in 12 patients of the POEDH subgroup, but only in 2 of the FEDH subgroup (50 vs. 11.8%). However, the presence of such lesions did not significantly deteriorate surgical outcomes in either of the subgroups.

创伤后额部和顶枕部硬膜外血肿:41例患者的回顾性分析及文献回顾。
背景:本研究的目的是分析额部(FEDH)或顶枕部(POEDH)硬膜外血肿患者之间的差异,并评估可能具有统计学意义的预后因素。材料和方法:在一组41例FEDH(17例)或POEDH(24例)患者的回顾性研究中,作者分析了性别、年龄、损伤类型、临床表现、入院时格拉斯哥昏迷评分(GCS)、放射学表现和创伤至手术时间间隔对结果的影响。良好的恢复和中度残疾被认为是"良好"或"有利的结果",而严重残疾、植物人状态或死亡则是"糟糕的结果"。结果:在POEDH亚组中,入院时GCS评分越高、年龄越小是预后较好的预后因素(p=0.006, rs=0.702)。在FEDHs患者亚组中,结果不显著。然而,FEDHs患者比POEDH亚组患者更经常有“良好的结果”(88.2 vs. 70.9%)。儿童(≤18岁)在POEDH亚组中所占比例(12.5%)低于FEDH亚组(41.2%)。评估事故和手术之间的时间间隔(≤24小时vs > 24小时)对任何研究亚组的结果均无显著影响。然而,在受伤后24小时内接受手术的患者入院时的GCS评分低于受伤后24小时以上接受手术的患者。FEDH患者以亚急性和慢性临床病程为主(10/17 FEDH vs 11/22 POEDH)。POEDH亚组中有12例患者出现了不同的伴随硬膜内病变,而FEDH亚组中只有2例(50 vs 11.8%)。然而,在这两个亚组中,这些病变的存在并没有显著地恶化手术结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Central European Neurosurgery
Central European Neurosurgery CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-NEUROSCIENCES
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信