Culotta V P, Sementilli M E, Gerold K, Watts C C
Division of Neurotrauma, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, USA.
Neurosurgery. 1996 Feb;38(2):245-50. doi: 10.1097/00006123-199602000-00002.
Research examining the neurobehavioral outcome after mild head injury has yielded inconsistent and contradictory findings. Such findings have been attributed to a variety of methodological weaknesses, such as failure to consider the preinjury status of the patient, lack of control groups, and variability in outcome time points. However, few researchers have examined the adequacy of the current diagnostic criteria. A Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 13 to 15 is one of the primary criteria in the classification of mild head injury. We propose that the use of GCS Scores 13 to 15 permits excessive heterogeneity in injury severity and contributes to variability in neurobehavioral outcome. The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship of admission GCS scores to variables indicative of injury severity. The case records of 3370 patients consecutively admitted to a Level I trauma center with nonmissile head injuries, positive loss of consciousness, and admission GCS scores of 13 to 15 were reviewed. The frequency of positive computed tomographic scan findings and the need for neurosurgical intervention within the first 24 hours were recorded. A chi 2 analysis revealed statistically significant differences between the frequency of positive computed tomographic scans and the need for neurosurgical intervention in patients with GCS scores of 13 versus 14, 14 versus 15, and 13 versus 15. These results indicate significant differences in injury severity among patients with admission GCS scores of 13 to 15. The implicit assumption of clinicopathological homogeneity among patients with such scores is challenged by these data. This study demonstrates the need for more precise research diagnostic criteria in the study of neurobehavioral outcome after mild head injury. These findings also provide compelling evidence for the re-examination of the classification of mild head injury. Serious consideration must be given to the segregation of patients with GCS scores of 15 from those with scores of 14 and 13.
研究轻度头部损伤后的神经行为结果,得出了不一致且相互矛盾的发现。这些发现归因于多种方法学上的弱点,比如未考虑患者伤前状况、缺乏对照组以及结果时间点的变异性。然而,很少有研究者考察当前诊断标准的充分性。格拉斯哥昏迷量表(GCS)评分为13至15分是轻度头部损伤分类的主要标准之一。我们认为,使用GCS评分为13至15分允许损伤严重程度存在过度的异质性,并导致神经行为结果的变异性。本研究的目的是考察入院时GCS评分与表明损伤严重程度的变量之间的关系。回顾了3370例连续入住一级创伤中心的患者的病例记录,这些患者有非穿透性头部损伤、意识丧失阳性且入院时GCS评分为13至15分。记录了计算机断层扫描阳性结果的频率以及在最初24小时内进行神经外科干预的必要性。卡方分析显示,GCS评分为13分与14分、14分与15分、13分与15分的患者在计算机断层扫描阳性频率和神经外科干预必要性方面存在统计学上的显著差异。这些结果表明,入院时GCS评分为13至15分的患者在损伤严重程度上存在显著差异。这些数据对具有此类评分的患者在临床病理同质性方面的隐含假设提出了挑战。本研究表明,在轻度头部损伤后神经行为结果的研究中需要更精确的研究诊断标准。这些发现也为重新审视轻度头部损伤的分类提供了有力证据。必须认真考虑将GCS评分为15分的患者与评分为14分和13分的患者区分开来。