↓ Skip to main content

Association of time to craniectomy with survival in patients with severe combat-related brain injury.

Overview of attention for article published in Neurosurgical Focus, December 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
26 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Association of time to craniectomy with survival in patients with severe combat-related brain injury.
Published in
Neurosurgical Focus, December 2018
DOI 10.3171/2018.9.focus18404
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stacy A Shackelford, Deborah J Del Junco, Michael C Reade, Randy Bell, Tyson Becker, Jennifer Gurney, Randall McCafferty, Donald W Marion

Abstract

OBJECTIVEIn combat and austere environments, evacuation to a location with neurosurgery capability is challenging. A planning target in terms of time to neurosurgery is paramount to inform prepositioning of neurosurgical and transport resources to support a population at risk. This study sought to examine the association of wait time to craniectomy with mortality in patients with severe combat-related brain injury who received decompressive craniectomy.METHODSPatients with combat-related brain injury sustained between 2005 and 2015 who underwent craniectomy at deployed surgical facilities were identified from the Department of Defense Trauma Registry and Joint Trauma System Role 2 Registry. Eligible patients survived transport to a hospital capable of diagnosing the need for craniectomy and performing surgery. Statistical analyses included unadjusted comparisons of postoperative mortality by elapsed time from injury to start of craniectomy, and Cox proportional hazards modeling adjusting for potential confounders. Time from injury to craniectomy was divided into quintiles, and explored in Cox models as a binary variable comparing early versus delayed craniectomy with cutoffs determined by the maximum value of each quintile (quintile 1 vs 2-5, quintiles 1-2 vs 3-5, etc.). Covariates included location of the facility at which the craniectomy was performed (limited-resource role 2 facility vs neurosurgically capable role 3 facility), use of head CT scan, US military status, age, head Abbreviated Injury Scale score, Injury Severity Score, and injury year. To reduce immortal time bias, time from injury to hospital arrival was included as a covariate, entry into the survival analysis cohort was defined as hospital arrival time, and early versus delayed craniectomy was modeled as a time-dependent covariate. Follow-up for survival ended at death, hospital discharge, or hospital day 16, whichever occurred first.RESULTSOf 486 patients identified as having undergone craniectomy, 213 (44%) had complete date/time values. Unadjusted postoperative mortality was 23% for quintile 1 (n = 43, time from injury to start of craniectomy 30-152 minutes); 7% for quintile 2 (n = 42, 154-210 minutes); 7% for quintile 3 (n = 43, 212-320 minutes); 19% for quintile 4 (n = 42, 325-639 minutes); and 14% for quintile 5 (n = 43, 665-3885 minutes). In Cox models adjusted for potential confounders and immortal time bias, postoperative mortality was significantly lower when time to craniectomy was within 5.33 hours of injury (quintiles 1-3) relative to longer delays (quintiles 4-5), with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.28, 95% CI 0.10-0.76 (p = 0.012).CONCLUSIONSPostoperative mortality was significantly lower when craniectomy was initiated within 5.33 hours of injury. Further research to optimize craniectomy timing and mitigate delays is needed. Functional outcomes should also be evaluated.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 7 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 12%
Researcher 4 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Lecturer 2 4%
Other 10 20%
Unknown 16 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 39%
Neuroscience 3 6%
Psychology 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 19 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 January 2019.
All research outputs
#2,490,864
of 25,774,185 outputs
Outputs from Neurosurgical Focus
#185
of 1,854 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,021
of 448,466 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neurosurgical Focus
#2
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,774,185 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,854 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 448,466 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.