老年患者外伤性脑损伤的手术与保守治疗:一项倾向匹配的队列研究。

IF 1.1 Q3 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Gunaseelan Rajendran, Sasikumar Mahalingam, Anitha Ramkumar, Kumaresh Pillur Tamilarasu, Rahini Kannan
{"title":"老年患者外伤性脑损伤的手术与保守治疗:一项倾向匹配的队列研究。","authors":"Gunaseelan Rajendran, Sasikumar Mahalingam, Anitha Ramkumar, Kumaresh Pillur Tamilarasu, Rahini Kannan","doi":"10.4103/tjem.tjem_133_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The management of traumatic brain injury in elderly patients remains a topic of conflicting evidence in the literature. While some studies suggest that surgical intervention is beneficial, others indicate increased mortality and morbidity. Therefore, we conducted this retrospective matched cohort study to further investigate the role of surgical and conservative management for traumatic brain injury in elderly individuals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The authors conducted a retrospective review comparing patients with traumatic brain injury who underwent nonoperative management (NOM) versus those who underwent operative management (OM). Case matching was employed to create an artificial control group matched for age, sex, noncontrast computed tomography (NCCT) findings, and symptoms at a 1:1 ratio of treatment to control. The inclusion criteria included patients aged 60 years and above who presented to the emergency medicine department with head injuries resulting from various causes, such as road traffic accidents, falls, or assault, whereas the exclusion criteria included polytrauma, severe hypovolemic shock, and referrals to other institutions. The outcomes of interest included all-cause mortality and Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) scores, with statistical significance set at <i>P</i> < 0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Optimal case matching was achieved for 52 out of 96 patients who underwent surgical management. There was no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality between patients who underwent surgical management (32.69%) and those who did not (28.82%). Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference in the GOS score at 1 month between the two groups. A subgroup analysis based on the severity of traumatic brain injury and radiological diagnosis of intracranial injury revealed no difference between the OM and NOM groups, except for patients who underwent midline shift surgery.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There was no difference in all-cause mortality among elderly patients with traumatic brain injury regardless of whether they received conservative or surgical management, except for patients who underwent midline shift surgery.</p>","PeriodicalId":46536,"journal":{"name":"Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":"25 2","pages":"92-99"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12002146/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Surgical versus conservative management for traumatic brain injury in elderly patients: A propensity-matched cohort study.\",\"authors\":\"Gunaseelan Rajendran, Sasikumar Mahalingam, Anitha Ramkumar, Kumaresh Pillur Tamilarasu, Rahini Kannan\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/tjem.tjem_133_24\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The management of traumatic brain injury in elderly patients remains a topic of conflicting evidence in the literature. While some studies suggest that surgical intervention is beneficial, others indicate increased mortality and morbidity. Therefore, we conducted this retrospective matched cohort study to further investigate the role of surgical and conservative management for traumatic brain injury in elderly individuals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The authors conducted a retrospective review comparing patients with traumatic brain injury who underwent nonoperative management (NOM) versus those who underwent operative management (OM). Case matching was employed to create an artificial control group matched for age, sex, noncontrast computed tomography (NCCT) findings, and symptoms at a 1:1 ratio of treatment to control. The inclusion criteria included patients aged 60 years and above who presented to the emergency medicine department with head injuries resulting from various causes, such as road traffic accidents, falls, or assault, whereas the exclusion criteria included polytrauma, severe hypovolemic shock, and referrals to other institutions. The outcomes of interest included all-cause mortality and Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) scores, with statistical significance set at <i>P</i> < 0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Optimal case matching was achieved for 52 out of 96 patients who underwent surgical management. There was no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality between patients who underwent surgical management (32.69%) and those who did not (28.82%). Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference in the GOS score at 1 month between the two groups. A subgroup analysis based on the severity of traumatic brain injury and radiological diagnosis of intracranial injury revealed no difference between the OM and NOM groups, except for patients who underwent midline shift surgery.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There was no difference in all-cause mortality among elderly patients with traumatic brain injury regardless of whether they received conservative or surgical management, except for patients who underwent midline shift surgery.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46536,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":\"25 2\",\"pages\":\"92-99\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12002146/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/tjem.tjem_133_24\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/tjem.tjem_133_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:老年外伤性脑损伤患者的处理一直是文献中证据矛盾的话题。虽然一些研究表明手术干预是有益的,但其他研究表明死亡率和发病率增加。因此,我们进行了这项回顾性匹配队列研究,以进一步探讨手术和保守治疗在老年人创伤性脑损伤中的作用。方法:作者对外伤性脑损伤接受非手术治疗(NOM)与接受手术治疗(OM)的患者进行回顾性分析。采用病例匹配的方法创建一个人工对照组,根据年龄、性别、非对比计算机断层扫描(NCCT)结果和症状进行匹配,治疗组与对照组的比例为1:1。纳入标准包括60岁及以上因各种原因(如道路交通事故、跌倒或殴打)到急诊科就诊的头部损伤患者,而排除标准包括多发创伤、严重低血容量性休克和转诊到其他机构的患者。关注的结局包括全因死亡率和格拉斯哥结局量表(GOS)评分,P < 0.05为有统计学意义。结果:96例接受手术治疗的患者中有52例获得最佳病例匹配。接受手术治疗的患者的全因死亡率(32.69%)与未接受手术治疗的患者的全因死亡率(28.82%)无统计学差异。同样,两组患者1个月GOS评分差异无统计学意义。基于创伤性脑损伤严重程度和颅内损伤影像学诊断的亚组分析显示,除了中线移位手术的患者外,OM组和NOM组之间没有差异。结论:老年外伤性脑损伤患者的全因死亡率,除了行中线移位手术的患者外,无论是保守治疗还是手术治疗,均无差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Surgical versus conservative management for traumatic brain injury in elderly patients: A propensity-matched cohort study.

Objective: The management of traumatic brain injury in elderly patients remains a topic of conflicting evidence in the literature. While some studies suggest that surgical intervention is beneficial, others indicate increased mortality and morbidity. Therefore, we conducted this retrospective matched cohort study to further investigate the role of surgical and conservative management for traumatic brain injury in elderly individuals.

Methods: The authors conducted a retrospective review comparing patients with traumatic brain injury who underwent nonoperative management (NOM) versus those who underwent operative management (OM). Case matching was employed to create an artificial control group matched for age, sex, noncontrast computed tomography (NCCT) findings, and symptoms at a 1:1 ratio of treatment to control. The inclusion criteria included patients aged 60 years and above who presented to the emergency medicine department with head injuries resulting from various causes, such as road traffic accidents, falls, or assault, whereas the exclusion criteria included polytrauma, severe hypovolemic shock, and referrals to other institutions. The outcomes of interest included all-cause mortality and Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) scores, with statistical significance set at P < 0.05.

Results: Optimal case matching was achieved for 52 out of 96 patients who underwent surgical management. There was no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality between patients who underwent surgical management (32.69%) and those who did not (28.82%). Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference in the GOS score at 1 month between the two groups. A subgroup analysis based on the severity of traumatic brain injury and radiological diagnosis of intracranial injury revealed no difference between the OM and NOM groups, except for patients who underwent midline shift surgery.

Conclusion: There was no difference in all-cause mortality among elderly patients with traumatic brain injury regardless of whether they received conservative or surgical management, except for patients who underwent midline shift surgery.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
30
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊介绍: The Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine (Turk J Emerg Med) is an International, peer-reviewed, open-access journal that publishes clinical and experimental trials, case reports, invited reviews, case images, letters to the Editor, and interesting research conducted in all fields of Emergency Medicine. The Journal is the official scientific publication of the Emergency Medicine Association of Turkey (EMAT) and is printed four times a year, in January, April, July and October. The language of the journal is English. The Journal is based on independent and unbiased double-blinded peer-reviewed principles. Only unpublished papers that are not under review for publication elsewhere can be submitted. The authors are responsible for the scientific content of the material to be published. The Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine reserves the right to request any research materials on which the paper is based. The Editorial Board of the Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine and the Publisher adheres to the principles of the International Council of Medical Journal Editors, the World Association of Medical Editors, the Council of Science Editors, the Committee on Publication Ethics, the US National Library of Medicine, the US Office of Research Integrity, the European Association of Science Editors, and the International Society of Managing and Technical Editors.
×
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