TRAVMATİK BEYİN HASARI OLAN HASTALARDA NÖROPSİKOLOJİK BOZULMA ÖLÇEĞİNİN ÖNGÖRÜSÜNÜN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Öz

Amaç: Glasgow Koma Ölçeği (GKÖ), Engellilik Derecelendirme Ölçeği (EDÖ) ve Hastanede Kalış Süresi (HKS) dahil olmak üzere travmatik beyin hasarı olan hastaların sonuçlarını tahmin etmek için çeşitli çalışmalarda farklı ölçümler kullanılmıştır. Bu çalışma, Tebriz'deki İmam Rıza Hastanesi'nin acil servisine travmatik beyin hasarı nedeniyle başvuran hastaların ölüm oranı, iyileşme ve taburculuk sonuçları açısından Nöropsikolojik Bozukluk Ölçeği'nin (NBÖ) öngörüdeki önemini değerlendirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Tanımlayıcı-analitik kesitsel yöntem kullanılarak yapılan bu araştırma, travmatik beyin hasarı geçirmiş 18 yaş ve üzeri 100 kişiden oluşan bir çalışma grubunu içermektedir. Araştırma, NBÖ maddeleri, yaş, cinsiyet ve yaralanma mekanizması ayrıntıları gibi hasta bilgilerini içeren bir kontrol listesi ile yapıldı. Kontrol listesi, yatak başı muayeneleri sırasında tamamlandı. Bulgular: Bulgular, 21 ila 40 yaş grubundaki erkeklerde (%78) travmatik beyin hasarı prevalansının daha yüksek olduğunu göstermektedir. Hastaların ortalama yaşı 41,63'tür. Yüksekten düşme, beyin travmasının en önemli nedeni olarak ortaya çıkmakta ve bunu araç içi trafik kazaları takip etmekteydi. Ortalama birincil GKÖ erkekler için 13,47, kadınlar için 14,63'tü. Vakaların %67'sinde hastaneye yatış, %30'unda taburcu edilme ve %3'ünde cerrahi müdahale yapıldı. Çalışmada, incelenen örneğin NBÖ standartı ile başlangıçtaki GKÖ puanı arasında ters korelasyon olduğu saptandı. Sonuç: Çalışma sonuçları, NBÖ ile başlangıç GKÖ arasındaki ters ilişki, daha düşük NBÖ değerlerinin daha iyi sonuçlarla ilişkili olduğunu ve bunun öngörücü bir faktör olarak kullanılabileceğini göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• NBÖ
• travmatik beyin hasarı
• Nöropsikolojik Bozukluk Ölçeği

PREDICTIVE VALUE OF THE NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL IMPAIRMENT SCALE IN PATIENTS WITH TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY

Öz

Objective: Various studies have used different measures to predict the outcome of patients with traumatic brain injury, including the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), Disability Rating Scale, and length of hospital stay, among others. This study was conducted to determine the predictive significance of the Neuropsychological Impairment Scale (NIS) concerning the mortality rate, recovery, and discharge outcomes of patients who have been presented to the emergency department. Material and Method: This descriptive–analytical cross-sectional study was conducted on 100 individuals aged ≥18 years who have experienced traumatic brain injuries. A checklist was prepared incorporating items from the NIS and patient information such as age, gender, and injury mechanism details. The checklist was completed during bedside examinations. Result: The prevalence of traumatic brain injuries was higher in men (78%) in the age group of 21–40 years. The average age of patients was 41.63 years. Falling from a height was identified as the predominant cause of brain trauma, followed by twocar accidents. The mean primary GCS score was 13.47 for men and 14.63 for women. Hospitalization occurred in 67% of cases, followed by discharge in 30% and surgical intervention in 3% of cases. An inverse correlation was observed between the examined sample’s NIS standard score and the initial GCS score. Conclusion: An inverse relationship between NIS and initial GCS scores suggests that lower NIS scores are associated with better outcomes, indicating its utility as a predictive factor.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Traumatic brain injury
• Neuropsychological Impairment Scale
• Glasgow Coma Scale

Kaynakça

1. 1. Menon DK, Schwab K, Wright DW, Maas AI. Position statement: definition of traumatic brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010;91(11):1637-40. [CrossRef] google scholar
2. 2. Dash HH, Chavali S. Management of traumatic brain injury patients. Korean J Anesthesiol 2018;71(1):12-21. [CrossRef] google scholar
3. 3. Capizzi A, Woo J, Verduzco-Gutierrez M. Traumatic brain injury: an overview of epidemiology, pathophysiology, and medical management. Medical Clinics 2020;104(2):213-38. [CrossRef] google scholar
4. 4. Capizzi A, Woo J, Verduzco-Gutierrez M. Traumatic Brain Injury: An Overview of Epidemiology, Pathophysiology, and Medical Management. Med Clin North Am 2020;104(2):213-38. [CrossRef] google scholar
5. 5. Peeters W, van den Brande R, Polinder S, Brazinova A, Steyerberg EW, Lingsma HF, et al. Epidemiology of traumatic brain injury in Europe. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2015;157(10):1683-96. [CrossRef] google scholar
6. 6. Masel BE, DeWitt DS. Traumatic brain injury: a disease process, not an event. J Neurotrauma 2010;27(8):1529-40. [CrossRef] google scholar
7. 7. Pavlovic D, Pekic S, Stojanovic M, Popovic V. Traumatic brain injury: neuropathological, neurocognitive and neurobehavioral sequelae. Pituitary 2019;22(3):270-82. [CrossRef] google scholar
8. 8. Cernak I. Animal models of head trauma. NeuroRx 2005;2(3):410-22. [CrossRef] google scholar

9. 9. Gaetz M. The neurophysiology of brain injury. Clin Neurophysiol 2004;115(1):4-18. [CrossRef] google scholar
10. 10. Bramlett HM, Dietrich WD. Long-term consequences of traumatic brain injury: Current status of potential mechanisms of injury and neurological outcomes. J Neurotrauma 2015;32(23):1834-48. [CrossRef] google scholar
11. 11. Kowalski RG, Hammond FM, Weintraub AH, Nakase-Richardson R, Zafonte RD, Whyte J, et al. Recovery of Consciousness and Functional Outcome in Moderate and Severe Traumatic Brain Injury. JAMA Neurol 2021;78(5):548-57. [CrossRef] google scholar
12. 12. Rosenfeld JV, Maas AI, Bragge P, Morganti-Kossmann MC, Manley GT, Gruen RL. Early management of severe traumatic brain injury. Lancet 2012;380(9847):1088-98. [CrossRef] google scholar
13. 13. Godbolt AK, DeBoussard CN, Stenberg M, Lindgren M, Ulfarsson T, Borg J. Disorders of consciousness after severe traumatic brain injury: a Swedish-Icelandic study of incidence, outcomes and implications for optimizing care pathways. J Rehabil Med 2013;45(8):741-8. [CrossRef] google scholar
14. 14. Hooper SR. Book Review: The Neuropsychological Impairment Scale. J Psychoeducational Assessment 1999;17(2):171-4. [CrossRef] google scholar
15. 15. Chevignard M, Taillefer C, Picq C, Pradat-Diehl P. Ecological assessment of executive functions in a patient with acquired brain injury. Ann Readapt Med Phys 2008;51(2):74-83. [CrossRef] google scholar
16. 16. Mazaux JM, Masson F, Levin HS, Alaoui P, Maurette P, Barat M. Long-term neuropsychological outcome and loss of social autonomy after traumatic brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1997;78(12):1316-20. [CrossRef] google scholar
17. 17. Skaansar O, Tverdal C, R0nning PA, Skogen K, Brommeland T, R0ise O, et al. Traumatic brain injury-the effects of patient age on treatment intensity and mortality. BMC Neurol 2020;20(1):376. [CrossRef] google scholar
18. 18. Mollayeva T, Mollayeva S, Pacheco N, Colantonio A. Systematic review of sex and gender effects in traumatic brain injury: equity in clinical and functional outcomes. Frontiers Neurol 2021;12:678971. [CrossRef] google scholar
19. 19. Zia N, Mehmood A, Namaganda RH, Ssenyonjo H, Kobusingye O, Hyder AA. Causes and outcomes of traumatic brain injuries in Uganda: analysis from a pilot hospital registry. Trauma Surg Acute Care Open 2019;4(1):e000259. [CrossRef] google scholar
20. 20. Lee SY, Kim SS, Kim CH, Park SW, Park JH, Yeo M. Prediction of outcome after traumatic brain injury using clinical and neuroimaging variables. J Clin Neurol 2012;8(3):224-9. [CrossRef] google scholar
21. 21. Ponsford J, Draper K, Schönberger M. Functional outcome 10 years after traumatic brain injury: its relationship with demographic, injury severity, and cognitive and emotional status. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 2008;14(2):233-42. [CrossRef] google scholar
22. 22. Sigurdardottir S, Andelic N, Roe C, Schanke AK. Cognitive recovery and predictors of functional outcome 1 year after traumatic brain injury. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 2009;15(5):740-50. [CrossRef] google scholar