Skip to main content

Long-Term Outcome Following Traumatic Brain Injury

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Traumatic Brain Injury
  • 1190 Accesses

Abstract

The question of long-term outcome is one that needs to be considered at all stages and severity of traumatic brain injury (TBI). In cases of mild and relatively moderate head injury, patients and their families will often be concerned regarding issues such as restoration of neurocognitive function, social reintegration, and return to work. For the more severe injuries, the initial concerns may revolve around the issues of life and death and thereafter the possibility of survival with severe disability.

However, notwithstanding the clinical value of a number of assessment tools, long-term outcome is usually dichotomized into favorable or unfavorable, the implication being that for a therapy to be considered beneficial, more patients in the intervention arm of a trial should achieve a favorable outcome, and from a research perspective, this is an entirely reasonable approach. However, for an individual patient and their families, adopting this position can be problematic.

Many patients who have had a relative mild head injury go on to make a full recovery; however, the favorable outcome category also includes patients with moderate disability, and this by definition includes patients whose work capacity is reduced and who have ongoing personality and interpersonal problems. The impact that these issues have on an individual and their families can be significant, and in certain cases, the term “favorable” may fail to adequately describe their perceived outcome. Likewise, there are certain patients who survive in the unfavorable outcome category who appear perfectly happy. The question remains as to how this should be approached from a clinical and ethical perspective such that patients and families can be counseled appropriately regarding realistic long-term outcome expectations.

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 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
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

References

  1. Hutchinson PJ, Kolias AG, Timofeev IS, et al. Trial of decompressive craniectomy for traumatic intracranial hypertension. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:1119–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Lucas S, Smith BM, Temkin N, et al. Comorbidity of headache and depression after mild traumatic brain injury. Headache. 2016;56:323–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. van der Naalt J, Timmerman ME, de Koning ME, et al. Early predictors of outcome after mild traumatic brain injury (UPFRONT): an observational cohort study. Lancet Neurol. 2017;16:532–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Jaeger M, Deiana G, Nash S, et al. Prognostic factors of long-term outcome in cases of severe traumatic brain injury. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2014;57:436–51.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Mollayeva T, Kendzerska T, Mollayeva S, et al. A systematic review of fatigue in patients with traumatic brain injury: the course, predictors and consequences. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2014;47:684–716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hicks AJ, Gould KR, Hopwood M, et al. Behaviours of concern following moderate to severe traumatic brain injury in individuals living in the community. Brain Inj. 2017;31:1312–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Goode D. The national quality of life for persons with disabilities project: a quality of life agenda for the United States. In: Goode D, editor. Quality of life for persons with disabilities. Cambridge: Brookline Press; 1994. p. 139–61.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ubel PA, Loewenstein G, Schwarz N, et al. Misimagining the unimaginable: the disability paradox and health care decision making. Health Psychol. 2005;24:S57–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Albrecht GL, Devlieger PJ. The disability paradox: high quality of life against all odds. Soc Sci Med. 1999;48:977–88.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Albrecht GL, Higgins PC. Rehabilitation success: the interrelationships of multiple criteria. J Health Soc Behav. 1978;18:36–45.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Vahedi K, Hofmeijer J, Juettler E, et al. Early decompressive surgery in malignant infarction of the middle cerebral artery: a pooled analysis of three randomised controlled trials. Lancet Neurol. 2007;6:215–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Honeybul S, Ho KM, Gillett GR. Long-term outcome following decompressive craniectomy: an inconvenient truth? Curr Opin Crit Care. 2018;24:97–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Honeybul S, Janzen C, Kruger K, et al. Decompressive craniectomy for severe traumatic brain injury: is life worth living? J Neurosurg. 2013;119:1566–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Antonovsky A. The structure and properties of the sense of coherence scale. Soc Sci Med. 1993;36:725–33.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Antonovsky A. Complexity, conflict, chaos, coherence, coercion and civility. Soc Sci Med. 1993;37:969–81.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Giacino JT, Ashwal S, Childs N, et al. The minimally conscious state: definition and diagnostic criteria. Neurology. 2002;58:349–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kobylarz EJ, Schiff ND. Functional imaging of severely brain-injured patients: progress, challenges, and limitations. Arch Neurol. 2004;61:1357–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Schiff ND, Rodriguez-Moreno D, Kamal A. fMRI reveals large-scale network activation in minimally conscious patients. Neurology. 2005;8(64):514–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Schiff ND, Ribary U, Moreno DR, et al. Residual cerebral activity and behavioural fragments can remain in the persistently vegetative brain. Brain. 2002;125:1210–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Schiff ND, Giacino JT, Kalmar K, et al. Behavioural improvements with thalamic stimulation after severe traumatic brain injury. Nature. 2007;448:600–3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. 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:e165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. MRC CRASH Trial Collaborators, Perel P, Arango M, et al. Predicting outcome after brain injury: practical prognostic models based on a large cohort of international patients. BMJ. 2008;23:425–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Honeybul S, Ho KM. Predicting long-term neurological outcomes after severe traumatic brain injury requiring decompressive craniectomy: a comparison of the CRASH and IMPACT prognostic models. Injury. 2016;47:1886–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen Honeybul .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Ethics declarations

 None declared.

Financial support: No financial support has been required for this research.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Honeybul, S. (2021). Long-Term Outcome Following Traumatic Brain Injury. In: Honeybul, S., Kolias, A.G. (eds) Traumatic Brain Injury. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78075-3_34

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics