Literature DB >> 32195734

Day-of-Injury Computed Tomography and Longitudinal Rehabilitation Outcomes: A Comparison of the Marshall and Rotterdam Computed Tomography Scoring Methods.

Kayla M Frodsham1, Joseph E Fair, R Brock Frost, Ramona O Hopkins, Erin D Bigler, Sarah Majercik, Joseph Bledsoe, David Ryser, Joel MacDonald, Ryan Barrett, Susan D Horn, David Pisani, Mark Stevens, Michael J Larson.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare the relative predictive value of Marshall Classification System and Rotterdam scores on long-term rehabilitation outcomes. This study hypothesized that Rotterdam would outperform Marshall Classification System.
DESIGN: The study used an observational cohort design with a consecutive sample of 88 participants (25 females, mean age = 42.0 [SD = 21.3]) with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury who were admitted to trauma service with subsequent transfer to the rehabilitation unit between February 2009 and July 2011 and who had clearly readable computed tomography scans. Twenty-three participants did not return for the 9-mo postdischarge follow-up. Day-of-injury computed tomography images were scored using both Marshall Classification System and Rotterdam criteria by two independent raters, blind to outcomes. Functional outcomes were measured by length of stay in rehabilitation and the cognitive and motor subscales of the Functional Independence Measure at rehabilitation discharge and 9-mo postdischarge follow-up.
RESULTS: Neither Marshall Classification System nor Rotterdam scales as a whole significantly predicted Functional Independence Measure motor or cognitive outcomes at discharge or 9-mo follow-up. Both scales, however, predicted length of stay in rehabilitation. Specific Marshall scores (3 and 6) and Rotterdam scores (5 and 6) significantly predicted subacute outcomes such as Functional Independence Measure cognitive at discharge from rehabilitation and length of stay.
CONCLUSIONS: Marshall Classification System and Rotterdam scales may have limited utility in predicting long-term functional outcome, but specific Marshall and Rotterdam scores, primarily linked to increased severity and intracranial pressure, may predict subacute outcomes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32195734      PMCID: PMC7483635          DOI: 10.1097/PHM.0000000000001422

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Phys Med Rehabil        ISSN: 0894-9115            Impact factor:   3.412


  42 in total

1.  Validity of the functional independence measure for persons with traumatic brain injury.

Authors:  J D Corrigan; K Smith-Knapp; C V Granger
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  1997-08       Impact factor: 3.966

2.  Research in physical medicine and rehabilitation. XII. Measurement tools with application to brain injury.

Authors:  M V Johnston; T W Findley; J DeLuca; R T Katz
Journal:  Am J Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  1991-02       Impact factor: 2.159

3.  Interobserver variability in the assessment of CT imaging features of traumatic brain injury.

Authors:  Kimberly A Chun; Geoffrey T Manley; Shirley I Stiver; Ashley H Aiken; Nicholas Phan; Vincent Wang; Michele Meeker; Su-Chun Cheng; A D Gean; Max Wintermark
Journal:  J Neurotrauma       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 5.269

4.  The reliability of the functional independence measure: a quantitative review.

Authors:  K J Ottenbacher; Y Hsu; C V Granger; R C Fiedler
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  1996-12       Impact factor: 3.966

5.  Day-of-injury computerized tomography, rehabilitation status, and development of cerebral atrophy in persons with traumatic brain injury.

Authors:  Erin D Bigler; David K Ryser; Partha Gandhi; Jordan Kimball; Elisabeth A Wilde
Journal:  Am J Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 2.159

6.  Use of early indicators in rehabilitation process to predict functional outcomes in subjects with acquired brain injury.

Authors:  R Avesani; M Fedeli; C Ferraro; M Khansefid
Journal:  Eur J Phys Rehabil Med       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 2.874

7.  Volumetric analysis of day of injury computed tomography is associated with rehabilitation outcomes after traumatic brain injury.

Authors:  Sarah Majercik; Joseph Bledsoe; David Ryser; Ramona O Hopkins; Joseph E Fair; R Brock Frost; Joel MacDonald; Ryan Barrett; Susan Horn; David Pisani; Erin D Bigler; Scott Gardner; Mark Stevens; Michael J Larson
Journal:  J Trauma Acute Care Surg       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 3.313

8.  Predicting outcome after traumatic brain injury: practical prognostic models based on large cohort of international patients.

Authors:  Pablo Perel; Miguel Arango; Tim Clayton; Phil Edwards; Edward Komolafe; Stuart Poccock; Ian Roberts; Haleema Shakur; Ewout Steyerberg; Surakrant Yutthakasemsunt
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2008-02-12

9.  Influence of early variables in traumatic brain injury on functional independence measure scores and rehabilitation length of stay and charges.

Authors:  T D Cowen; J M Meythaler; M J DeVivo; C S Ivie; J Lebow; T A Novack
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  1995-09       Impact factor: 3.966

Review 10.  Position statement: definition of traumatic brain injury.

Authors:  David K Menon; Karen Schwab; David W Wright; Andrew I Maas
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 3.966

View more
  2 in total

1.  Acute Imaging Findings Predict Recovery of Cognitive and Motor Function after Inpatient Rehabilitation for Pediatric Traumatic Brain Injury: A Pediatric Brain Injury Consortium Study.

Authors:  Eric T Caliendo; Nayoung Kim; David Edasery; Gulce Askin; Sophie Nowak; Linda M Gerber; Katherine T Baum; Laura S Blackwell; Christine H Koterba; Kristen R Hoskinson; Brad G Kurowski; Matthew McLaughlin; Sarah J Tlustos; William D Watson; Sumit N Niogi; Stacy J Suskauer; Sudhin A Shah
Journal:  J Neurotrauma       Date:  2021-03-01       Impact factor: 4.869

Review 2.  Status of precision medicine approaches to traumatic brain injury.

Authors:  Sahithi Reddi; Smita Thakker-Varia; Janet Alder; Anna O Giarratana
Journal:  Neural Regen Res       Date:  2022-10       Impact factor: 6.058

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.