Objective. To compare acute outcome following complicated versus uncomplicated mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI) using neurocognitive and self-report measures. Method. Participants were 47 patients who presented to the emergency department of Tampere University Hospital, Finland. All completed MRI scanning, self-report measures, and neurocognitive testing at 3-4 weeks after injury. Participants were classified into the complicated MTBI or uncomplicated MTBI group based on the presence/absence of intracranial abnormality on day-of-injury CT scan or 3-4 week MRI scan. Results. There was a large statistically significant difference in time to return to work between groups. The patients with uncomplicated MTBIs had a median of 6.0 days (IQR = 0.75–14.75, range = 0–77) off work compared to a median of 36 days (IQR = 13.5–53, range = 3–315) for the complicated group. There were no significant differences between groups for any of the neurocognitive or self-report measures. There were no differences in the proportion of patients who (a) met criteria for ICD-10 postconcussional disorder or (b) had multiple low scores on the neurocognitive measures. Conclusion. Patients with complicated MTBIs took considerably longer to return to work. They did not perform more poorly on neurocognitive measures or report more symptoms, at 3-4 weeks after injury compared to patients with uncomplicated MTBIs. 1. Introduction Most mild traumatic brain injuries (MTBIs) are not associated with visible abnormalities on structural neuroimaging. A complicated MTBI, in the original definition [1], was differentiated from an uncomplicated mild TBI by the presence of (a) a depressed skull fracture and/or (b) a trauma-related intracranial abnormality (e.g., hemorrhage, contusion, or edema). Other researchers have dropped the depressed skull fracture from the criteria and simply retained the criterion for an intracranial abnormality. The rates of complicated MTBIs, based on cohorts of patients who underwent acute computed tomography following head trauma, are presented in Table 1. The rates of abnormalities vary considerably. In general, when examining details within these studies, patients with GCS scores of 13 or 14 are more likely to have an abnormality than patients with a GCS score of 15. Other possible reasons for differences in abnormality rates could relate to technology (e.g., older scanners versus newer scanners) and referral patterns for neuroimaging (i.e., more liberal versus more conservative use of imaging). Table 1: Rates of complicated mild TBI in adults. It is seems logical
References
[1]
D. H. Williams, H. S. Levin, and H. M. Eisenberg, “Mild head injury classification,” Neurosurgery, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 422–428, 1990.
[2]
R. T. Lange, G. L. Iverson, M. J. Zakrzewski, P. E. Ethel-King, and M. D. Franzen, “Interpreting the trail making test following traumatic brain injury: comparison of traditional time scores and derived indices,” Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, vol. 27, no. 7, pp. 897–906, 2005.
[3]
G. L. Iverson, M. D. Franzen, and M. R. Lovell, “Normative comparisons for the controlled oral word association test following acute traumatic brain injury,” Clinical Neuropsychologist, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 437–441, 1999.
[4]
G. Iverson, “Complicated vs uncomplicated mild traumatic brain injury: acute neuropsychological outcome,” Brain Injury, vol. 20, no. 13-14, pp. 1335–1344, 2006.
[5]
S. R. Borgaro, G. P. Prigatano, C. Kwasnica, and J. L. Rexer, “Cognitive and affective sequelae in complicated and uncomplicated mild traumatic brain injury,” Brain Injury, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 189–198, 2003.
[6]
E. Kurca, S. Sivak, and P. Kucera, “Impaired cognitive functions in mild traumatic brain injury patients with normal and pathologic magnetic resonance imaging,” Neuroradiology, vol. 48, no. 9, pp. 661–669, 2006.
[7]
P. A. M. Hofman, S. Z. Stapert, M. J. P. G. Van Kroonenburgh, J. Jolles, J. De Kruijk, and J. T. Wilmink, “MR imaging, single-photon emission CT, and neurocognitive performance after mild traumatic brain injury,” American Journal of Neuroradiology, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 441–449, 2001.
[8]
R. E. Hanlon, J. A. Demery, Z. Martinovich, and J. P. Kelly, “Effects of acute injury characteristics on neuropsychological status and vocational outcome following mild traumatic brain injury,” Brain Injury, vol. 13, no. 11, pp. 873–887, 1999.
[9]
R. T. Lange, G. Iverson, and M. D. Franzen, “Neuropsychological functioning following complicated vs. uncomplicated mild traumatic brain injury,” Brain Injury, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 83–91, 2009.
[10]
J. van der Naalt, J. M. Hew, A. H. van Zomeren, W. J. Sluiter, and J. M. Minderhoud, “Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in mild to moderate head injury: early and late imaging related to outcome,” Annals of Neurology, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 70–78, 1999.
[11]
J. T. L. Wilson, D. M. Hadley, L. C. Scott, and A. Harper, “Neuropsychological significance of contusional lesions identified by MRI,” in Recovery after Traumatic Brain Injury, B. P. Uzzell and H. H. Stonnington, Eds., pp. 29–50, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahway, NJ, USA, 1996.
[12]
N. R. Temkin, J. E. Machamer, and S. S. Dikmen, “Correlates of functional status 3–5 years after traumatic brain injury with CT abnormalities,” Journal of Neurotrauma, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 229–241, 2003.
[13]
S. R. McCauley, C. Boake, H. S. Levin, C. F. Contant, and J. X. Song, “Postconcussional disorder following mild to moderate traumatic brain injury: anxiety, depression, and social support as risk factors and comorbidities,” Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 792–808, 2001.
[14]
H. Lee, M. Wintermark, A. D. Gean, J. Ghajar, G. T. Manley, and P. Mukherjee, “Focal lesions in acute mild traumatic brain injury and neurocognitive outcome: CT versus 3T MRI,” Journal of Neurotrauma, vol. 25, no. 9, pp. 1049–1056, 2008.
[15]
N. S. King, S. Crawford, F. J. Wenden, N. E. G. Moss, and D. T. Wade, “The Rivermead Post Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire: a measure of symptoms commonly experienced after head injury and its reliability,” Journal of Neurology, vol. 242, no. 9, pp. 587–592, 1995.
[16]
A. T. Beck, R. A. Steer, and G. K. Brown, Manual for the Beck Depression Inventory-II (Finnish version), The Psychological Corporation, San Antonio, Tex, USA, 1996.
[17]
S. R. Borgaro, S. Gierok, H. Caples, and C. Kwasnica, “Fatigue after brain injury: initial reliability study of the BNI Fatigue Scale,” Brain Injury, vol. 18, no. 7, pp. 685–690, 2004.
[18]
D. Wechsler, Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, Psychological Corporation, San Antonio, Tex, USA, 3rd edition, 1997.
[19]
M. D. Lezak, D. B. Howieson, and D. W. Loring, Neuropsychological Assessment, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA, 4th edition, 2004.
[20]
Army Individual Test Battery, Manual of Directions and Scoring, War Department, Adjutant General's Office, Washigton, DC, USA, 1944.
[21]
O. Spreen and E. Strauss, A Compendium of Neuropsychological Tests, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA, 1991.
[22]
J. van der Naalt, A. H. van Zomeren, W. J. Sluiter, and J. M. Minderhoud, “One year outcome in mild to moderate head injury: the predictive value of acute injury characteristics related to complaints and return to work,” Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 207–213, 1999.
[23]
C. Denk and A. Rauscher, “Susceptibility weighted imaging with multiple echoes,” Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 185–191, 2010.
[24]
A. Rauscher, M. Barth, K. H. Herrmann, S. Witoszynskyj, A. Deistung, and J. R. Reichenbach, “Improved elimination of phase effects from background field inhomogeneities for susceptibility weighted imaging at high magnetic field strengths,” Magnetic Resonance Imaging, vol. 26, no. 8, pp. 1145–1151, 2008.
[25]
K. A. Tong, S. Ashwal, B. A. Holshouser et al., “Hemorrhagic shearing lesions in children and adolescents with posttraumatic diffuse axonal injury: improved detection and initial results,” Radiology, vol. 227, no. 2, pp. 332–339, 2003.
[26]
D. H. Livingston, P. A. Loder, J. Koziol, and C. D. Hunt, “The use of CT scanning to triage patients requiring admission following minimal head injury,” Journal of Trauma, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 483–489, 1991.
[27]
S. C. Stein and S. E. Ross, “Mild head injury: a plea for routine early CT scanning,” Journal of Trauma, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 11–13, 1992.
[28]
J. S. Jeret, M. Mandell, B. Anziska et al., “Clinical predictors of abnormality disclosed by computed tomography after mild head trauma,” Neurosurgery, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 9–16, 1993.
[29]
S. G. Moran, M. C. McCarthy, D. E. Uddin et al., “Predictors of positive CT scans in the trauma patient with minor head injury,” American Surgeon, vol. 60, no. 7, pp. 533–536, 1994.
[30]
P. Borczuk, “Predictors of intracranial injury in patients with mild head trauma,” Annals of Emergency Medicine, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 731–736, 1995.
[31]
G. L. Iverson, M. R. Lovell, S. Smith, and M. D. Franzen, “Prevalence of abnormal CT-scans following mild head injury,” Brain Injury, vol. 14, no. 12, pp. 1057–1061, 2000.
[32]
S. P. Thiruppathy and N. Muthukumar, “Mild head injury: revisited,” Acta Neurochirurgica, vol. 146, no. 10, pp. 1075–1082, 2004.
[33]
I. G. Stiell, C. M. Clement, B. H. Rowe et al., “Comparison of the Canadian CT head rule and the New Orleans criteria in patients with minor head injury,” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 294, no. 12, pp. 1511–1518, 2005.
[34]
K. Ono, K. Wada, T. Takahara, and T. Shirotani, “Indications for computed tomography in patients with mild head injury,” Neurologia Medico-Chirurgica, vol. 47, no. 7, pp. 291–298, 2007.
[35]
M. Saboori, J. Ahmadi, and Z. Farajzadegan, “Indications for brain CT scan in patients with minor head injury,” Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery, vol. 109, no. 5, pp. 399–405, 2007.
