PriMera Scientific Surgical Research and Practice (ISSN: 2836-0028)

Research Article

Volume 7 Issue 6

Review of Cerebral Protection Effect on the Outcomes of Severe Traumatic Brain Injured Patients in Bauchi, Nigeria

Olabisi O Ogunleye, Ibrahim S Abdullahi, Abubakar M Ballah, Rabiu Mohammad, Wina Felix Markus, Alhamdu Ibrahim and Oluchukwu B Ogunleye

May 30, 2026

DOI : 10.56831/PSSRP-07-268

View PDF

Abstract

Introduction: As a cause of disability, severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a leading cause worldwide. The management of cerebral protection (CP) might play an outcome role in the patient. CP in optimize cerebral metabolism and subsequent agitation, prevent diffusion barriers from being compromised, and protect the brain from any additional insults secondary brain injury. The aim of this study was to analyze short term Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) in patients after CP at the intensive care unit (ICU) discharge and a month after ICU discharge. They are factors associated to the favourable outcome.

Methodology: This is a prospective cohort study that ran from February 2021 to January 2022. After ICU discharge and 1 month after ICU, shorter term outcomes of patients were evaluated discharge using GOS. GOS 4 and 5 was defined as favourable outcome.

We adopted Generalized Estimation Equation (GEE), to conduct bivariate GEE and multivariate GEE then. Thie equations enable the evaluation of the factors associated with favorable outcomes at ICU discharge and one month later.

Result: twenty-seven severe TBI patients who were admitted to ICU within 24 hours of (GOS of 8 and below) were recruited into the study and received CP management. At ICU discharge, the proportion of death was 17% and 0% at one month after ICU discharge. At ICU discharge the proportion of favorable outcomes was 26.1%, and 61.1% after 1 month post discharge.

We evaluated age, measured as odds ratio (OR) = 0.96 (95% CI: 0.94, 0.99; P =.001) among other factors. Duration of CP (OR = 0.41; 95% CI: 0.20, 0.84; P = 0.014) and hyperosmolar therapy (OR =0.41; 95% CI 0.21, 0.83; P = 0.013). The study shows significant association.

Conclusion: Younger age group, longer duration of CP and absence of hyperosmolar therapy is associated with favourable outcome. We recommend further clinical trials to assess the long-term outcome of CP.

Keywords: Traumatic brain injury; cerebral protection; Glasgow Coma Scale; Glasgow Outcome Scale

References

  1. Jennett B and MacMillan R. “Epidemiology of head injury”. BMJ 282 (1981): 101-4.
  2. Fearnside MR and Simpson DA. “Epidemiology”. In: Reilly P, Bullock R (Eds) Head injury. London: Chapman & Hall (1997): 3-24.
  3. Teasdale C and Jennett B. “Assessment and prognosis of coma after head injury”. Acta Neurocbir (Wten) 34 (1976): 45-55.
  4. Peeters W., et al. “Epidemiology of traumatic brain injury in Europe”. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 157.10 (2015): 1683-1696.
  5. Ponsford JL., et al. “Longitudinal follow-up of patients with traumatic brain injury: outcome at two, five, and ten years post-injury”. J Neurotrauma 31.1 (2014): 64-77.
  6. Bullock MR and Povilshock JT. “Indications for intracranial pressure monitoring”. Neurotrauma 13 (1996): 667-79
  7. Tai LL., et al. “Malaysian Registry of Intensive Care 2016 report”. Malaysian Registry of Intensive Care, Ministry of Health Malaysia (2017).
  8. Robertson CS. “Management of cerebral perfusion pressure after traumatic brain injury”. Anesthesiology 95.6 (2001): 1513-1517.
  9. Brain Trauma Foundation, American Association of Neurological Surgeons, Congress of Neurological Surgeons. “Guidelines for the management of severe traumatic brain injury”. J Neurotrauma 24.Suppl 1 (2007): S1-S106.
  10. Lu C., et al. “Advances in diagnosis, treatments, and molecular mechanistic studies of traumatic brain injury”. Biosci Trends 9.3 (2015): 138-148. Malays J Med Sci 31.2 (2024): 142-152.
  11. Wilson JTL, Pettigrew LEL and Teasdale GM. “Structured interviews for the Glasgow Outcome Scale and the extended Glasgow Outcome Scale: guidelines for their use”. J Neurotrauma 15.8 (1998): 573-585.
  12. Brain Trauma Foundation, American Association of Neurological Surgeons, Congress of Neurological Surgeons. “Guidelines for the management of severe traumatic brain injury”. J Neurotrauma 24.Suppl 1 (2007): S1-S106.
  13. Arulsamy A and Shaikh MF. “Current status of traumatic brain injury research in Malaysia: a systematic review”. Neurosci Res Notes 3.4 (2020): 1-21.
  14. Frost RB., et al. “Prevalence of traumatic brain injury in the general adult population: a meta-analysis”. Neuroepidemiology 40.3 (2013): 154-159.
  15. Brazinova A., et al. “Epidemiology of traumatic brain injury in Europe: a living systematic review”. J Neurotrauma 38.10 (2021): 1411-1440.
  16. Aarabi B., et al. “Outcome following decompressive craniectomy for malignant swelling due to severe head injury”. J Neurosurg 104.4 (2006): 469-479.
  17. Timofeev I., et al. “Decompressive craniectomy in traumatic brain injury: outcome following protocol-driven therapy”. Acta Neurochirurgica Supplementum 96 (2006): 11-16.
  18. Hukkelhoven CWPM., et al. “Patient age and outcome following severe traumatic brain injury: an analysis of 5600 patients”. J Neurosurg 99.4 (2003): 666-673.
  19. Alvis BD, Hughes CG. “Physiology considerations in geriatric patients”. Anesthesiol Clin 33.3 (2015): 447-456.
  20. Roquilly A., et al. “Effect of continuous infusion of hypertonic saline vs standard care on 6-month neurological outcomes in patients with traumatic brain injury”. JAMA 325.20 (2021): 2056-2066.
  21. Mustafa AFM., et al. “Analysis on short-term outcomes for cerebral protection treatment in post severe traumatic brain injury patients: a single neurosurgical centre study”. Malays J Med Sci 31.2 (2024): 142-152.