Sosa-Medellín MÁ, Fernández-Mancilla RK

Language: Spanish
References: 11
Page: 420-424
PDF size: 314.75 Kb.

ABSTRACT

It is estimated that approximately 69 million people present a head trauma, in critical and emergency settings, the initial evaluation consists of a clinical examination to be able to classify the degree of severity of the brain injury based on the Glasgow coma scale. However, the use of images such as computed axial tomography play an important role in the follow-up of these patients, since with a complete evaluation (clinical and imaging) we can obtain characteristics of their severity and prognosis. The Marshall scale has been the standard for evaluating patients at the time of admission, but scales such as Rotterdam, Helsinki and Stockholm show better performance in predicting 6-month mortality.

REFERENCES

1. Sosa MA. Traumatismo craneoencefálico. Abordaje en el Servicio de Urgencias. Revista Medicina Clínica 2019; 3 (1).

2. Estrada F, Morales J, Tabla E, Solís B, Navarro H, Martínez M, et al. Neuroproteccion y traumatismo craneoencefálico. Revista de la Facultad de Medicina de la UNAM 2012; 55.

3. Clement M. Imaging of brain trauma. Radiol Clin N Am 2019; 57; 733-744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. rcl.2019.02.008.

4. Jacquens A, Abdennour L, Boch AL, Jalin L, Puybasset L, Degos V. Vigilancia y reanimación de los pacientes con un Cuadro 4. Escala de Estocolmo Componente Descripción Puntaje de hemorragia subaracnoidea (PHSA) Hemorragia en convexidades: 1 si 1-5 mm + hemorragia en cisternas basales: 1 si 1-5 mm, 2 si > 5 mm + hemorragia intraventricular: 2 si está presente (0-6 puntos) Cuenta Línea media (mm)/10 + PHSA/2 - 1, si existe hematoma epidural + 1, si existe lesión axonal difusa + 1, si el hematoma es bilateral + 1 traumatismo craneal grave. EMC-Anestesia-Reanimación 2018; 44 (3): 1-18.

5. Polytrauma Guideline Update Group. Level 3 guideline on the treatment of patients with severe/multiple injuries. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 2018; 44 (Suppl 1): S3-S271. doi: 10.1007/s00068-018-0922-y.

6. Jinadasa S, Boone D. Controversies in the management of traumatic brain injury. Anesthesiology Clin 2016; 34: 557-575. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anclin.2016.04.008.

7. Munacomi S. A comparative study between Marshall and Rotterdam CT scores in predicting early deaths in patients with traumatic brain injury in a major tertiary care hospital in Nepal. Chin J Traumatol 2’16; 19: 25-27.

8. Maas AIR, Hukkelhoven CWPM, Marshall LF, Steyerberg EW. Prediction of outcome in traumatic brain injury with computed tomographic characteristics: a comparison between the computed tomographic classification and combinations of computed tomographic predictors. Neurosurgery 2005; 57 (6): 1173-82. doi: 10.1227/01. neu.0000186013.63046.6b.

9. Varela A, Martínez C, Muñoz R, Torres R, Orellana F, Herrera P, et al. Relevancia del puntaje de Rotterdam para el pronóstico de empeoramiento en pacientes con traumatismo encéfalocraneano. Rev Chil Neurocirugía 2018; 44: 114-120.

10. Thelin E, Nelson D, Vehvilainen J, Nystrom H, Kivisaari R, Siironen J, et al. Evaluation of novel computerized tomography scoring systems in human traumatic brain injury: An observational, multicenter study. PLos Med 2017; 14(8): e1002368. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002368.

11. Raj R, Siironen J, Skrifvars M, Hernesniemi J, Kivisaari R. Predicting outcome in traumatic brain injury: Development of a novel computerized tomography classification system (Helsinki Computerized Tomography Score). Neurosurgery 2014; 75 (6): 632-46; discussion 646-7. doi: 10.1227/ NEU.0000000000000533.