BACKGROUND: Controversy exists about the influence of intracranial injuries in mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) on quality of life (QoL). Some patients do not fully recover from mTBI and experience neurocognitive impairment and reduction in quality of life. We evaluated the influence of structural brain damage on QoL and employment status (ES) after mTBI. METHODS: In a partially prospective design we evaluated QoL using Short-Form-36 (SF36) and current ES three years after trauma in 36 patients with mTBI in a matched pair design with two groups of 18 patients each with and without structural brain damage. RESULTS: Both groups showed a reduction in physical (Physical Functioning, Role Physical, Bodily Pain and General Health) and emotional parameters (Vitality, Social Functioning, Role Emotional and Mental Health) without significant difference between both groups (p = 0.305, p = 0.406, p = 0.624, p = 0.720, p = 0.934, p = 0.282, p = 0.811 and p = 0.270 respectively). ES was independent of structural brain damage and an influential factor for QoL. CONCLUSION: MTBI specific QoL assessment including focus on ES is necessary to identify patients at risk for impaired recovery. Structural brain injury as seen on CT scan is not useful as a prognostic tool to predict QoL or ES after mTBI.
BACKGROUND: Controversy exists about the influence of intracranial injuries in mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) on quality of life (QoL). Some patients do not fully recover from mTBI and experience neurocognitive impairment and reduction in quality of life. We evaluated the influence of structural brain damage on QoL and employment status (ES) after mTBI. METHODS: In a partially prospective design we evaluated QoL using Short-Form-36 (SF36) and current ES three years after trauma in 36 patients with mTBI in a matched pair design with two groups of 18 patients each with and without structural brain damage. RESULTS: Both groups showed a reduction in physical (Physical Functioning, Role Physical, Bodily Pain and General Health) and emotional parameters (Vitality, Social Functioning, Role Emotional and Mental Health) without significant difference between both groups (p = 0.305, p = 0.406, p = 0.624, p = 0.720, p = 0.934, p = 0.282, p = 0.811 and p = 0.270 respectively). ES was independent of structural brain damage and an influential factor for QoL. CONCLUSION: MTBI specific QoL assessment including focus on ES is necessary to identify patients at risk for impaired recovery. Structural brain injury as seen on CT scan is not useful as a prognostic tool to predict QoL or ES after mTBI.
Authors: L A Gaudet; L Eliyahu; J Beach; M Mrazik; G Cummings; D C Voaklander; B H Rowe Journal: Occup Med (Lond) Date: 2019-10-01 Impact factor: 1.611
Authors: Paul E Rapp; Brenna M Rosenberg; David O Keyser; Dominic Nathan; Kevin M Toruno; Christopher J Cellucci; Alfonso M Albano; Scott A Wylie; Douglas Gibson; Adele M K Gilpin; Theodore R Bashore Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2013-07-22 Impact factor: 4.003