Defining New Research Questions and Protocols in the Field of Traumatic Brain Injury through Public Engagement: Preliminary Results and Review of the Literature

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is the most common cause of death and disability in the age group below 40 years. The financial cost of loss of earnings and medical care presents a massive burden to family, society, social care, and healthcare, the cost of which is estimated at £1 billion per annum (about brain injury (online)). At present, we still lack a full understanding on the pathophysiology of TBI, and biomarkers represent the next frontier of breakthrough discoveries. Unfortunately, many tenets limit their widespread adoption. Brain tissue sampling is the mainstay of diagnosis in neuro-oncology; following on this path, we hypothesise that information gleaned from neural tissue samples obtained in TBI patients upon hospital admission may correlate with outcome data in TBI patients, enabling an early, accurate, and more comprehensive pathological classification, with the intent of guiding treatment and future research. We proposed various methods of tissue sampling at opportunistic times: two methods rely on a dedicated sample being taken; the remainder relies on tissue that would otherwise be discarded. To gauge acceptance of this, and as per the guidelines set out by the National Research Ethics Service, we conducted a survey of TBI and non-TBI patients admitted to our Trauma ward and their families. 100 responses were collected between December 2017 and July 2018, incorporating two redesigns in response to patient feedback. 75.0% of respondents said that they would consent to a brain biopsy performed at the time of insertion of an intracranial pressure (ICP) bolt. 7.0% replied negatively and 18.0% did not know. 70.0% would consent to insertion of a jugular bulb catheter to obtain paired intracranial venous samples and peripheral samples for analysis of biomarkers. Over 94.0% would consent to neural tissue from ICP probes, external ventricular drains (EVD), and lumbar drains (LD) to be salvaged, and 95.0% would consent to intraoperative samples for further analysis

The Exoscope versus operating microscope in microvascular surgery: A simulation non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: The Exoscope is a novel high-definition digital camera system. There is limited evidence signifying the use of exoscopic devices in microsurgery. This trial objectively assesses the effects of the use of the Exoscope as an alternative to the standard operating microscope (OM) on the performance of experts in a simulated microvascular anastomosis. METHODS: Modus V Exoscope and OM were used by expert microsurgeons to perform standardized tasks. Hand-motion analyzer measured the total pathlength (TP), total movements (TM), total time (TT), and quality of end-product anastomosis. A clinical margin of TT was performed to prove non-inferiority. An expert performed consecutive microvascular anastomoses to provide the exoscopic learning curve until reached plateau in TT. RESULTS: Ten micro sutures and 10 anastomoses were performed. Analysis demonstrated statistically significant differences in performing micro sutures for TP, TM, and TT. There was statistical significance in TM and TT, however, marginal non-significant difference in TP regarding microvascular anastomoses performance. The intimal suture line analysis demonstrated no statistically significant differences. Non-inferiority results based on clinical inferiority margin (Δ) of TT=10 minutes demonstrated an absolute difference of 0.07 minutes between OM and Exoscope cohorts. A 51%, 58%, and 46% improvement or reduction was achieved in TT, TM, TP, respectively, during the exoscopic microvascular anastomosis learning curve. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that experts' Exoscope anastomoses appear non-inferior to the OM anastomoses. Exoscopic microvascular anastomosis was more time consuming but end-product (patency) in not clinically inferior. Experts' "warm-up" learning curve is steep but swift and may prove to reach clinical equality

Global Perspectives on Task Shifting and Task Sharing in Neurosurgery.

BACKGROUND: Neurosurgical task shifting and task sharing (TS/S), delegating clinical care to non-neurosurgeons, is ongoing in many hospital systems in which neurosurgeons are scarce. Although TS/S can increase access to treatment, it remains highly controversial. This survey investigated perceptions of neurosurgical TS/S to elucidate whether it is a permissible temporary solution to the global workforce deficit. METHODS: The survey was distributed to a convenience sample of individuals providing neurosurgical care. A digital survey link was distributed through electronic mailing lists of continental neurosurgical societies and various collectives, conference announcements, and social media platforms (July 2018-January 2019). Data were analyzed by descriptive statistics and univariate regression of Likert Scale scores. RESULTS: Survey respondents represented 105 of 194 World Health Organization member countries (54.1%; 391 respondents, 162 from high-income countries and 229 from low- and middle-income countries [LMICs]). The most agreed on statement was that task sharing is preferred to task shifting. There was broad consensus that both task shifting and task sharing should require competency-based evaluation, standardized training endorsed by governing organizations, and maintenance of certification. When perspectives were stratified by income class, LMICs were significantly more likely to agree that task shifting is professionally disruptive to traditional training, task sharing should be a priority where human resources are scarce, and to call for additional TS/S regulation, such as certification and formal consultation with a neurosurgeon (in person or electronic/telemedicine). CONCLUSIONS: Both LMIC and high-income countries agreed that task sharing should be prioritized over task shifting and that additional recommendations and regulations could enhance care. These data invite future discussions on policy and training programs

Feasibility of comparing medical management and surgery (with neurosurgery or stereotactic radiosurgery) with medical management alone in people with symptomatic brain cavernoma - protocol for the Cavernomas: A Randomised Effectiveness (CARE) pilot trial.

INTRODUCTION: The top research priority for cavernoma, identified by a James Lind Alliance Priority setting partnership was 'Does treatment (with neurosurgery or stereotactic radiosurgery) or no treatment improve outcome for people diagnosed with a cavernoma?' This pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) aims to determine the feasibility of answering this question in a main phase RCT. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform a pilot phase, parallel group, pragmatic RCT involving approximately 60 children or adults with mental capacity, resident in the UK or Ireland, with an unresected symptomatic brain cavernoma. Participants will be randomised by web-based randomisation 1:1 to treatment with medical management and with surgery (neurosurgery or stereotactic radiosurgery) versus medical management alone, stratified by prerandomisation preference for type of surgery. In addition to 13 feasibility outcomes, the primary clinical outcome is symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage or new persistent/progressive focal neurological deficit measured at 6 monthly intervals. An integrated QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) evaluates screening logs, audio recordings of recruitment discussions, and interviews with recruiters and patients/parents/carers to identify and address barriers to participation. A Patient Advisory Group has codesigned the study and will oversee its progress. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the Yorkshire and The Humber-Leeds East Research Ethics Committee (21/YH/0046). We will submit manuscripts to peer-reviewed journals, describing the findings of the QRI and the Cavernomas: A Randomised Evaluation (CARE) pilot trial. We will present at national specialty meetings. We will disseminate a plain English summary of the findings of the CARE pilot trial to participants and public audiences with input from, and acknowledgement of, the Patient Advisory Group. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN41647111

Consensus statement from the International Consensus Meeting on the Role of Decompressive Craniectomy in the Management of Traumatic Brain Injury

Abstract: Background: Two randomised trials assessing the effectiveness of decompressive craniectomy (DC) following traumatic brain injury (TBI) were published in recent years: DECRA in 2011 and RESCUEicp in 2016. As the results have generated debate amongst clinicians and researchers working in the field of TBI worldwide, it was felt necessary to provide general guidance on the use of DC following TBI and identify areas of ongoing uncertainty via a consensus-based approach. Methods: The International Consensus Meeting on the Role of Decompressive Craniectomy in the Management of Traumatic Brain Injury took place in Cambridge, UK, on the 28th and 29th September 2017. The meeting was jointly organised by the World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies (WFNS), AO/Global Neuro and the NIHR Global Health Research Group on Neurotrauma. Discussions and voting were organised around six pre-specified themes: (1) primary DC for mass lesions, (2) secondary DC for intracranial hypertension, (3) peri-operative care, (4) surgical technique, (5) cranial reconstruction and (6) DC in low- and middle-income countries. Results: The invited participants discussed existing published evidence and proposed consensus statements. Statements required an agreement threshold of more than 70% by blinded voting for approval. Conclusions: In this manuscript, we present the final consensus-based recommendations. We have also identified areas of uncertainty, where further research is required, including the role of primary DC, the role of hinge craniotomy and the optimal timing and material for skull reconstruction