Skip to main content

Traumatic Brain Injury: Severity and Outcome

  • Chapter
Intensive Care Medicine
  • 229 Accesses

Abstract

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) has been termed a silent epidemic [1]. In the USA, approximately 95 per 100 000 inhabitants sustain a fatal, or severe enough injury to require hospital admission, each year [2]. In the Federal Republic of Germany, the annual incidence of severe TBI is estimated at 10000 [3]. In the Netherlands, the incidence is 79 per 100 000 inhabitants [4]. Whilst this incidence is lower, compared to other causes of brain injury, such as stroke, the long-term effects and socio-economic costs are equal or even higher, as TBI primarily affects younger age groups.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Goldstein M (1990) Traumatic brain injury: A silent epidemic. Ann Neurol 27: 327

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (1999) Epidemiology of traumatic brain injury in the United States. At: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dacrrdp/tbi.htm

  3. Lehr D, Baethmann A, Reulen HJ, et al (1997) Management of patients with severe head injury in the preclinical phase: A prospective analysis. J Trauma 42 (suppl 5): S71 - S75

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Van Balen HGG, Mulder Th, Keyser A (1996) Towards a disability-oriented epidmiology of traumatic brain injury. Disabil Rehabil 18: 181–190

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hall KM, Johnston MV (1994) Outcomes evaluation in TBI rehabilitation. Part 2: measurement tools for a nationwide data system. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 75 (suppl):SC10–SC18

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Levin HS, O’Donnell VM, Grossman RG (1979) The Galveston Orientation and Amnesia Test. A practical scale to assess cognition after head injury. J Nery Ment Dis 167: 675–684

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Zafonte RD, Mann NR, Millis SR, Black KL, Wood DL, Hammond F (1997) Posttraumatic amnesia: Its relation to functional outcome. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 78: 1101–1106

    Google Scholar 

  8. Teasdale G, Jennet B (1974) Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness: a practical scale. The Lancet 2: 81–84

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Hall KM (1997) Establishing a national traumatic brain injury information system based upon a unified data set. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 78: 55–511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Zasler ND (1997) Prognostic indicators in medical rehabilitation of traumatic brain injury: a commentary and review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 78: S12 - S16

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Marshall LF, Marshall SB, Klauber MR, et al (1991) The diagnosis of head injury requires a classification based on computed axial tomography. J Neurotrauma 9 (suppl 1): S287 - S292

    Google Scholar 

  12. Aldrich EF, Eisenberg HM, Saydjari C, et al (1992) Predictors of mortality in severely head-injured patients civilian gunshot wounds: A report from the NIH Traumatic Coma Data Bank. Surg Neurol 38: 418–423

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Murray GD, Teasdale GM, Braakman R, et al (1999) The European Brain Injury Consortium survey of head injuries across Europe. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 141: 223–236

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. World Health Organization (1980) International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities, and Handicaps. World Health Organization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  15. World Health Organization (1997) ICIDH-2: International Classification of Impairments, Activities and Participation. A manual of Dimensions of Disablement and Functioning. Beta-1 draft for field trials. World Health Organization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  16. Jennett B, Bond M (1975) Assessment of outcome after severe brain damage. A practical scale. The Lancet 1: 480–485

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Anderson SI, Housley AM, Jones PA, Slattery J, Miller JD (1993) Glasgow Outcome Scale: an interrater reliability study. Brain Injury 7: 309–317

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Boake C (1996) Supervision Rating Scale: a measure of functional outcome from brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 77: 765–772

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Smith RM, Fields FRJ, Lenox JL, Morris HO, Nolan JJ (1979) A functional scale of recovery from severe head trauma. Clin Neuropsychol 1: 48–50

    Google Scholar 

  20. Maas AIR, Braakman R, Schouten HJA, Minderhoud JM, Van Zomeren AH (1983) Agreement between physicians on assessment of outcome following severe head injury. J Neurosurg 58: 321–325

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Livingston MG, Livingston HG (1985) The Glasgow Assessment Schedule: clinical and research assessment of head injury outcome. Int Rehabil Med 7: 145–149

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Home G, Schremitsch E (1989) Assessment of the survivors of major trauma accidents. Aust N Z J Surg 59: 465–470

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Wilson JTL, Pettigrew LEL, Teasdale GM (1998) Structured interviews for the Glasgow Outcome Scale and the Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale. J Neurotrauma 15: 587–597

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Jennett B, Snoek J, Bond MR, Brooks N (1981) Disability after severe head injury: Observations on the use of the Glasgow Outcome Scale. J Neurol Neurosurg Psych 44: 285–293

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Rappaport M, Hall KM, Hopkins K, Belleza T, Cope DN (1982) Disability Rating Scale for severe head trauma: coma to community. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 63: 118–123

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Gouvier WD, Blanton PD, LaPorte KK, Nepomuceno C (1987) Reliability and validity of the Disability Rating Scale and the Levels of Cognitive Functioning Scale in monitoring recovery from severe head injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 68: 94–97

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Heinemann, AW, Linacre JM, Wright BD, Hamilton BB, Granger C (1994) Prediction of rehabilitation outcomes with disability measures. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 75: 133–143

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Fleming JM, Maas F (1994) Prognosis of rehabilitation outcome in head injury using the disability rating scale. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 75: 156–163

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Rappaport M, Hall K, Hopkins K, Belleza T, Berrol S, Reynolds G (1977) Evoked brain potentials and disability in brain-damaged patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 58: 333–338

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Rappaport M, Hall K, Hopkins K, Belleza T (1981) Evoked potentials and head injury: 1. Rating of evoked potential abnormality. Clin Electroencephalogr 12: 154–166

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Pettigrew LEL, Wilson JTL, Teasdale GM (1998) Assessing disability after head injury: improved use of the Glasgow Outcome Scale. J Neurosurg 89: 939–943

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Wade DT (1996) Measurement in Neurological Rehabilitation. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  33. Collin C, Wade DT, Davis S, et al (1988) The Barthel ADL Index: a reliability study. Int Disabil Stud 10: 61–63

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Heyink J (1997) The Barthel Index. In: Hutchinson A, Bentzen N, König-Zahn C (eds) Cross Cultural Health Outcome Assessment: a User’s Guide. European Research Group on Health Outcomes, pp 99–103

    Google Scholar 

  35. Hagen C (1982) Language cognitive disorganization following closed head injury: a conceptualization. In: Trexler LE (ed) Cognitive Rehabilitation: Conceptualization and Intervention. Plenum Press, New York, pp 131–151

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  36. Lezak MD (1995) Neuropsychological Assessment ( 3rd edn ). Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  37. Sohlberg MM, Mateer CA (1989) Introduction to Cognitive Rehabilitation. Guilford Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  38. Granger CV, Hamilton BB, Keith RA, Zielezny M, Sherwin FS (1986) Advances in functional assessment for medical rehabilitation. Top Geriatr Rehabil 1: 59–74

    Google Scholar 

  39. Hamilton BB, Granger CV, Sherwin FS, et al (1987) A uniform national data system for medical rehabilitation. In: Fuhrer MJ (ed) Rehabilitation Outcomes: Analysis and Measurement. Brookes, Baltimore, pp 137–147

    Google Scholar 

  40. Hamilton BB, Laughlin JA, Granger CV, et al (1991) Interrater agreement of the seven level functional independence measure. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 72: 790

    Google Scholar 

  41. Ottenbacher KJ, Hsu Y, Granger CV, Fiedler RC (1996) The reliability of the functional independence measure: a quantitative review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 77: 1226–1232

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Smith-Knapp K, Corrigan JD, Arnett JA (1996) Predicting functional independence from neuropsychological tests following traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury 10: 651–661

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Granger CV, Cotter AC, Hamilton BB, et al (1990) Functional assessment scales: study of persons with multiple sclerosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 71: 870–875

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Granger CV, Cotter AC, Hamilton BB, et al (1993) Functional assessment scales: a study of persons after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 74: 133–138

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Granger CV, Divan N, Roger BS, et al (1995) Functional assessment scales: a study of persons after traumatic brain injury. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 74: 107–113

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Willer B, Rosenthal M, Kreutzer JS, Gordon WA, Rempel R (1993) Assessment of community integration following rehabilitation for traumatic brain injury. J Head Trauma Rehabil 8: 75–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Overall JE, Gorham DR (1962) The brief psychiatric rating scale. Psychol Rep 10: 799–812

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Levin HS, High WM, Goethe KE, et al (1987) The neurobehavioral rating scale: assessment of the behavioural sequelae of head injury by the clinician. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 50: 183–193

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Corrigan JD, Dickerson J, Fisher E, Meyer P (1990) The Neurobehavioural Rating Scale: replication in an acute, inpatient rehabilitation setting. Brain Injury 4: 215–222

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Powell JH, Beckers K, Greenwood RJ (1998) Measuring progress and outcome in community rehabilitation after brain injury with a new assessment instrument-the BICRO-39 scales. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 79: 1213–1225

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Berger E, Leven F, Pirente N, Boullon B, Neugebauer E (1999) Quality of life after traumatic brain injury: A systematic review of the literature. Restor Neurol Neurosci 14: 93–102

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Pollard WE, Bobbit RA, Bergner M, Martin DP, Gilson BS (1976) The sickness impact profile: reliability of a health status measure. Med Care 14: 146–155

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Bergner M, Bobbitt RA, Kressel S, et al (1976) The Sickness Impact Profile: conceptual formulation and methodology for the development of a health status measure. Int J Health Sery 6: 393–415

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Krenz C, Larson EB, Buchner DM, Canfield CG (1988) Characterizing patient dysfunction in Alzheimer’s-Type dementia. Med Care 26: 453–461

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Hart CG, Evans RW (1987) The functional status of ESRD patients as measured by the Sickness Impact Profile. J Chron Dis 40: 1175–1305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Dego R (1984) Pitfalls in measuring the health status of Mexican Americans: comparative validity of the English and Spanish Sickness Impact Profile. Am J Pub Health 74: 569–573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Corrigan JD, Smith-Knapp K, Granger CV (1998) Outcomes in the first 5 years after traumatic brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 79: 298–230

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Smith JL, Magill-Evans J, Brintnell S (1998) Life satisfaction following traumatic brain injury. Can J Rehabil 11: 131–140

    Google Scholar 

  59. Van Balen HGG, Mulder Th (1996) Beyond the stereotype: an epidemiological study on the long-term sequelae of traumatic brain injury. Clin Rehabil 10: 259–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Moore AD, Stambrook M, Gill DD, Lubusko AA (1992) Differences in long-term quality of life in married and single TBI patients. Can J Rehabil 6: 89–98

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Fleming JH, Strong J, Ashton R (1998) Cluster analysis of self-awareness levels in adults with traumatic brain injury and relationship to outcome. J Head Trauma Rehabil 13: 39–51

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Temkin N, McLean A, Dikmen S, Gale J, Bergner M, Alines MJ (1988) Development and evaluation of modifications to the Sickness Impact Profile for head injury. J Clin Epidemiol 41: 47–57

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Wilkin D, Hallam L, Doggett MA (1992) Measures of Need and Outcome for Primary Health Care. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  64. Keith RA (1994) Functional status and health status. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 75: 478–483

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. De Bruin AF, Diederiks JPM, Witte de LP, Stevens FCJ, Philipsen H (1994) The development of a short generic version of the Sickness Impact Profile. J Clin Epidemiol 47: 407–418

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD (1992) The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). I: Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30: 473–483

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Brazier JE, Harper R, Jones NMB, et al (1992) Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: a new outcome measure for primary care. Br Med J 305: 160–164

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Ware J, Snow KK, Kosinski M, et al (1993) SF-36 Health Survey: Manual and Interpretation Guide. The Health Institute, New England Medical Center Hospitals, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  69. McHorney CA, Ware JE, Raczek AE (1993) The MOS-36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). II: Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care 31: 247–263

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Hanestad BR (1997) The MOS SF-36/RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0/HSQ. In: Hutchinson A, Bentzen N, König-Zahn C (eds) Cross Cultural Health Outcome Assessment: a User’s guide. European Research Group on Health Outcomes, pp 60–67

    Google Scholar 

  71. Coughlan AK, Storey P (1988) The Wimbledon Self-Report Scale: emotional and mood appraisal. Clin Rehabil 2: 207–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Nelson E, Wasson J, Kirk J, et al (1987) Assessment of function in routine clinical practice: description of the COOP Chart method and preliminary findings. J Chronic Dis 40 (suppl 1): 55S - 63S

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Scholten JHG, Van Weel C (1992) Functional Status Assessment in Family Practice: the Dartmouth COOP Functional Health Assessment Charts/WONCA. Meditekst, Lelystad

    Google Scholar 

  74. Weel C van, König-Zahn C, Touw-Otten FWMM, et al (1995) Measuring Functional Health Status with the COOP/WONCA Charts. A Manual. NCH series 7 Northern Centre of Health Care Research, Groningen

    Google Scholar 

  75. Nelson EC, Landgraf JM, Hayes RD, et al (1990) The functional status of patients: how can it be measured in physician’s offices? Med Care 28: 1111–1126

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. König-Zahn C (1997) The COOP/WONCA Charts. In: Hutchinson A, Bentzen N and König-Zahn C (eds) Cross Cultural Health Outcome Assessment: a User’s Guide. European Research Group on Health Outcomes, pp 48–53

    Google Scholar 

  77. Willer B, Ottenbacher KJ, Coad ML (1994) The community integration questionnaire. A comparitive examination. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 73: 103–111

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Dijkers M (1997) Measuring the long-term outcomes of traumatic brain injury: A review of the community integration questionnaire. J Head Trauma Rehabil 12: 74–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Hütter BO, Glisbach JM (1999) Das Aachener Lebensqualitätsinventar (ALQI) für Patienten mit Hirnschädigung: Erste Ergebnisse zu methodischen Gütekriterien. Zeitschrift für Neuropsychologie 10: 38

    Google Scholar 

  80. McMahon CG, Yates DW, Campbell FM, Hollis S, Woodford M (1999) Unexpected contribution of moderate traumatic brain injury to death after major trauma. J Trauma 47: 891–895

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2002 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

van Baalen, B., Odding, E., Maas, A.I.R. (2002). Traumatic Brain Injury: Severity and Outcome. In: Vincent, JL. (eds) Intensive Care Medicine. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-5551-0_60

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-5551-0_60

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4757-5553-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4757-5551-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics