| 1. |
- Cnossen, Maryse C., et al.
(författare)
-
Variation in monitoring and treatment policies for intracranial hypertension in traumatic brain injury : a survey in 66 neurotrauma centers participating in the CENTER-TBI study
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Critical Care. - : Springer. - 1364-8535 .- 1466-609X. ; 21:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: No definitive evidence exists on how intracranial hypertension should be treated in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). It is therefore likely that centers and practitioners individually balance potential benefits and risks of different intracranial pressure (ICP) management strategies, resulting in practice variation. The aim of this study was to examine variation in monitoring and treatment policies for intracranial hypertension in patients with TBI.METHODS: A 29-item survey on ICP monitoring and treatment was developed on the basis of literature and expert opinion, and it was pilot-tested in 16 centers. The questionnaire was sent to 68 neurotrauma centers participating in the Collaborative European Neurotrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study.RESULTS: The survey was completed by 66 centers (97% response rate). Centers were mainly academic hospitals (n = 60, 91%) and designated level I trauma centers (n = 44, 67%). The Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines were used in 49 (74%) centers. Approximately 90% of the participants (n = 58) indicated placing an ICP monitor in patients with severe TBI and computed tomographic abnormalities. There was no consensus on other indications or on peri-insertion precautions. We found wide variation in the use of first- and second-tier treatments for elevated ICP. Approximately half of the centers were classified as using a relatively aggressive approach to ICP monitoring and treatment (n = 32, 48%), whereas the others were considered more conservative (n = 34, 52%).CONCLUSIONS: Substantial variation was found regarding monitoring and treatment policies in patients with TBI and intracranial hypertension. The results of this survey indicate a lack of consensus between European neurotrauma centers and provide an opportunity and necessity for comparative effectiveness research.
|
|
| 3. |
- Weber, Clemens, et al.
(författare)
-
Surgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis: a survey among Norwegian spine surgeons.
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Acta neurochirurgica. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0942-0940 .- 0001-6268. ; 159:1, s. 191-7
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is the most common reason for lumbar surgery in the elderly. There is growing evidence that decompressive surgery offers an advantage over non-surgical management for selected patients with persistent severe symptoms. Based on treatment traditions, open laminectomy has been the gold standard surgical treatment, but various other surgical and non-surgical treatments for LSS are widely used in clinical practice. Therefore, we conducted a survey study to capture potential diversities in surgeons' management of LSS in Norway.All spine surgeons in Norway were contacted by e-mail and asked to answer a 20-item questionnaire by using an Internet-based survey tool. We asked eight questions about the respondent (gender, surgical specialty, workplace, experience, number of surgeries performed per year, use of magnification devices) and 12 questions about different aspects of the surgical treatment of LSS (indication for surgery and preoperative imaging, different surgical techniques, clinical outcome).The questionnaire was answered by 51 spine surgeons (47% response rate). The preferred surgical technique for LSS in Norway is microdecompression via a unilateral approach and crossover technique, followed by microdecompression via a bilateral approach. Other techniques are not much used in Norway.Most Norwegian spine surgeons use minimally invasive decompression techniques in the surgical treatment of LSS, and unilateral microsurgical decompression with crossover decompression is the preferred technique. Where evidence is lacking (e.g., fusion procedures), there is a larger variation of opinions and preferred procedures among Norwegian spine surgeons.
|
|
