The clinical examination in the patient with subarachnoid hemorrhage is still the most reliable parameter for predicting pathophysiological changes.

BACKGROUND

Macrovasospasms and delayed cerebral injury are factors which correlate with high morbidity in patients suffering a subarachnoid hemorrhage. Transcranial Doppler (TCD) ultrasonography and perfusion computed tomography (PCT) are diagnostic tools used to diagnose such pathologies. However, TCD is not very reliable and PCT exposes patients to radiation and cannot be performed daily.

CASE DESCRIPTION

We present the case of a 47-year-old female with subarachnoid hemorrhage caused by rupture of an intracranial aneurysm. The aneurysm was coil embolized, and the clinical course of the patient was uncomplicated. She was writing notes about her stay in the intensive care unit. Without having any other complaints, she noticed that her writing became abruptly unrecognizable. TCD failed to show pathological signs, although PCT revealed decreased brain perfusion.

CONCLUSION

We rely more and more on our technical tools in medicine. However, clinical examination is and will stay the the first sign indicating cerebral pathologies and should remain the first priority to have an awake patient who can be examined routinely. In addition, we emphasize on the need of seeing the patient and not only the images. More than anything else, the patient is the first who shows signs of pathology and not the instruments (CT, TCD, etc.). The sentence "a fool with a tool is still a fool" should be present in every doctor's mind to avoid mistakes and react appropriately.