Download PDF
Indian Journal of Neurotrauma 2016; 13(02): 066-069
DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1586219
Original Article
Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.

Rotterdam Computed Tomography Score to Predict Outcome in Traumatic Brain Injury Patients

Anil Kumar Singh
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Narayana Medical College Hospital, Chinthareddypalem, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India
,
Kishore V. Hegde
2   Department of Radiology, Narayana Medical College Hospital, Chinthareddypalem, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India
,
Umamaheswara V. Reddy
2   Department of Radiology, Narayana Medical College Hospital, Chinthareddypalem, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India
,
Ashok Munivenkatappa
3   VRDL Project, National Institute of Epidemiology, ICMR, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
,
Neeti Rustagi
4   Department of Community Medicine & Family Medicine, AIIMS Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
,
P. Rama Mohan
5   Department of Pharmacology, Narayana Medical College & Hospitals, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India
,
Amit Agrawal
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Narayana Medical College Hospital, Chinthareddypalem, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

04 January 2016

24 May 2016

Publication Date:
26 July 2016 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction In this article, we describe our experience of using Rotterdam computed tomography (CT) score at index admission to predict the outcome in traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients.

Materials and Methods A total of 370 TBI patients admitted to the Neurosurgery Intensive Care Unit, Narayana Medical College and Hospital, Andhra Pradesh, between January 2014 and December 2014 were evaluated. Based on availability of emergency CT scan, these patients' charts were reviewed prospectively. CT scan findings were quantified using Rotterdam CT classification (basal cistern, midline shift, and intraventricular blood/subarachnoid blood). Patient characteristic, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score, Rotterdam CT classification, and outcome were analyzed. Correlation between Rotterdam CT classification at index admission and outcome at discharge from the hospital, alive or dead, was assessed.

Results The mean age of patients was 39.19 ± 15.18 years. Rotterdam CT score was significant (p < 0.001) with age, GCS score, and outcome but not significant with gender (p = 0.618). The outcome and individual components of Rotterdam CT classification were statistically significant.

Conclusion Increase in Rotterdam CT score was significantly associated with mortality at discharge. We suggest that it is possible to predict the outcome based on CT scan findings. However, the findings can have shortcomings, due to obvious reasons.

Keywords

Rotterdam score - computed tomography - traumatic brain injury - prognosis - outcome
 

  • References

  • 1 Gupta PK, Atul K, Dwivedi AN , et al. CT scan findings and outcomes of head injury patients: a cross sectional study. J Pak Med Students 2011; 1: 78-82
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Huang YH, Deng YH, Lee TC, Chen WF. Rotterdam computed tomography score as a prognosticator in head-injured patients undergoing decompressive craniectomy. Neurosurgery 2012; 71 (1) 80-85
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Duhaime AC, Gean AD, Haacke EM , et al; Common Data Elements Neuroimaging Working Group Members, Pediatric Working Group Members. Common data elements in radiologic imaging of traumatic brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010; 91 (11) 1661-1666
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Nagurney JT, Borczuk P, Thomas SH. Elderly patients with closed head trauma after a fall: mechanisms and outcomes. J Emerg Med 1998; 16 (5) 709-713
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Zimmerman RA, Bilaniuk LT, Gennarelli T, Bruce D, Dolinskas C, Uzzell B. Cranial computed tomography in diagnosis and management of acute head trauma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1978; 131 (1) 27-34
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Panil Kumar B, Hegde KV, Agrawal A, Rooparani K. Indications and timing for CT scan in traumatic brain injury and analysis of CT scan findings. Narayana Medical Journal 2012; 1 (2) 35-46
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Havill JH, Sleigh JW, Davis GM , et al. Observer error and prediction of outcome—grading of head injury based on computerised tomography. Crit Care Resusc 2001; 3 (1) 15-18
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Lipper MH, Kishore PR, Enas GG, Domingues da Silva AA, Choi SC, Becker DP. Computed tomography in the prediction of outcome in head injury. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1985; 144 (3) 483-486
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Liu HM, Tu YK, Su CT. Changes of brainstem and perimesencephalic cistern: dynamic predictor of outcome in severe head injury. J Trauma 1995; 38 (3) 330-333
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Marshall LF, Marshall SB, Klauber MR , et al. A new classification of head injury based on computerized tomography. JNS 1991; 75 (1s) S14-S20
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Thomas BW, Mejia VA, Maxwell RA , et al. Scheduled repeat CT scanning for traumatic brain injury remains important in assessing head injury progression. J Am Coll Surg 2010; 210 (5) 824-830 , 831–832
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Raj R, Siironen J, Skrifvars MB, 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) 632-646 , discussion 646–647
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Maas AI, Hukkelhoven CW, 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) 1173-1182 , discussion 1173–1182
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Mebrahtu-Ghebrehiwet M, Quan L, Andebirhan T. The profile of CT scan findings in acute head trauma in Orotta Hospital, Asmara, Eritrea. J Eritrean Med Assoc 2009; 4 (1) 5-8
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Yuh EL, Cooper SR, Ferguson AR, Manley GT. Quantitative CT improves outcome prediction in acute traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma 2012; 29 (5) 735-746
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Zhu GW, Wang F, Liu WG. Classification and prediction of outcome in traumatic brain injury based on computed tomographic imaging. J Int Med Res 2009; 37 (4) 983-995
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Perel P, Edwards P, Wentz R, Roberts I. Systematic review of prognostic models in traumatic brain injury. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2006; 6: 38
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Hofman K, Primack A, Keusch G, Hrynkow S. Addressing the growing burden of trauma and injury in low- and middle-income countries. Am J Public Health 2005; 95 (1) 13-17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Jeret JS, Mandell M, Anziska B , et al. Clinical predictors of abnormality disclosed by computed tomography after mild head trauma. Neurosurgery 1993; 32 (1) 9-15 , discussion 15–16
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Murray GD, Butcher I, McHugh GS , et al. Multivariable prognostic analysis in traumatic brain injury: results from the IMPACT study. J Neurotrauma 2007; 24 (2) 329-337
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Bharti P, Nagar AM, Umesh T. Pattern of trauma in western Uttar Pradesh. Neurol India 1993; 41: 49-50
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Hukkelhoven CW, Steyerberg EW, Rampen AJ , et al. Patient age and outcome following severe traumatic brain injury: an analysis of 5600 patients. J Neurosurg 2003; 99 (4) 666-673
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Chesnut RM, Ghajar J, Maas AR J. Guidelines for the management and prognosis of severe traumatic brain injury part II: early indicators of prognosis in severe traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma 2000; 17: 556-627
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Compagnone C, Murray GD, Teasdale GM , et al; European Brain Injury Consortium. The management of patients with intradural post-traumatic mass lesions: a multicenter survey of current approaches to surgical management in 729 patients coordinated by the European Brain Injury Consortium. Neurosurgery 2005; 57 (6) 1183-1192 , discussion 1183–1192
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Lobato RD, Gomez PA, Alday R , et al. Sequential computerized tomography changes and related final outcome in severe head injury patients. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 1997; 139 (5) 385-391
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Servadei F, Nasi MT, Giuliani G , et al. CT prognostic factors in acute subdural haematomas: the value of the ‘worst’ CT scan. Br J Neurosurg 2000; 14 (2) 110-116
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Steyerberg EW, Mushkudiani N, Perel P , et al. Predicting outcome after traumatic brain injury: development and international validation of prognostic scores based on admission characteristics. PLoS Med 2008; 5 (8) e165 , discussion e165
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Liesemer K, Riva-Cambrin J, Bennett KS , et al. Use of Rotterdam CT scores for mortality risk stratification in children with traumatic brain injury. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2014; 15 (6) 554-562
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Jacobs B, Beems T, van der Vliet TM, Diaz-Arrastia RR, Borm GF, Vos PE. Computed tomography and outcome in moderate and severe traumatic brain injury: hematoma volume and midline shift revisited. J Neurotrauma 2011; 28 (2) 203-215
    Google Scholar
  • 30 Fujimoto K, Miura M, Otsuka T, Kuratsu J. Sequential changes in Rotterdam CT scores related to outcomes for patients with traumatic brain injury who undergo decompressive craniectomy. J Neurosurg 2016; 124 (6) 1640-1645
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Waqas M, Shamim MS, Enam SF , et al. Predicting outcomes of decompressive craniectomy: use of Rotterdam Computed Tomography Classification and Marshall Classification. Br J Neurosurg 2016; 30 (2) 258-263
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar