Search

Objectives:To report occurrence and identify patient’s features and risk factors of heterotopic ossifications in patients with severe acquired brain injury in intensive rehabilitation centres.Design:Multicentre cross-sectional survey.Setting:A total of 48 severe acquired brain injury rehabilitation institutes.Participants:Traumatic and non-traumatic severe brain-injured patients ( N = 689) in rehabilitation centres on 28 May 2016.Main Outcome Measure:Occurrence of heterotopic ossifications diagnosed by standard radiological and/or sonographic evaluation on the basis of clinical suspicion.Results:Heterotopic ossification occurred around one or more joints in 94/689 patients (13.6%) with a significantly higher prevalence in young males. Occurrence did not significantly differ in relation to aetiology (16.3% traumatic, 19.2% anoxic, 11.7% vascular and 11.5% other). Prevalence was significantly higher in patients with diffuse (23.3%) rather than focal brain lesions (12.4%) or unspecified lesions (11.2%; chi-square = 7.81, df = 2, P = 0.020); longer duration of coma ( P = 0.0016) and ventilation support ( P = 0.0145); paroxysmal sympathetic hyperactivity (22.6% versus 11.6%; chi-square = 10.81, df = 1, P = 0.001); and spasticity (22.7% versus 10.1%; chi-square = 18.63, df = 1, P < 0.0001). A longer interval between acute brain injury and admission to rehabilitation centre was significantly associated with higher frequency of heterotopic ossifications.Conclusion:Occurrence of heterotopic ossifications is frequent in patients with severe traumatic and non-traumatic brain-injury in rehabilitation centres. Our study confirms male gender, young age, paroxysmal sympathetic hyperactivity, spasticity, longer duration of coma and ventilation and longer interval between brain injury onset and admission to rehabilitation centre as possible risk factors. Further studies are necessary to investigate the role of early appropriate rehabilitation pathways to reduce occurrence of heterotopic ossifications.

Objective: To investigate which conscious behaviour is most frequently detected using the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised in patients with minimally conscious state. Design: Multicentre, cross-sectional study. Setting: One intensive care unit, 8 post-acute rehabilitation centres and 2 long-term facilities. Subjects: Fifty-two patients with established diagnosis of minimally conscious state of different aetiology. Main measures: All patients were assessed by the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised. Results: In most patients (34/52) non-reflexive responses were identified by two or more subscales of the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised, whereas in 14 patients only the visual subscale could identify cortically-mediated behaviours, and in the remaining 4 patients only the motor subscale did so. The clinical signs of intentional behaviour were most often detected by the visual subscale (43/52 patients) and by the motor subscale (31/52), and least frequently by the oromotor/verbal subscale (3/52) of the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised. This clinical pattern was observed independently from time post-onset and aetiology. Conclusions: Non-reflexive visual behaviour, identified by the visual subscale of Coma Recovery Scale-Revised, is the most frequently detected intentional sign consistent with the diagnosis of minimally conscious state, independently from aetiology and time post-onset.

To assess the effectiveness of sensory stimulation programmes in patients in coma or vegetative state.Systematic review of randomized control trials (RCT) and nonrandomized controlled clinical trials (CCT) comparing any type of stimulation programmes with standard rehabilitation in patients in coma or vegetative state. The Injuries Group specialized register, the Cochrane Controlled trial register, EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PSYCHLIT from 1966 to January 2002 were searched without language restriction. Reference lists of articles were scanned and experts in the area contacted to find other relevant studies. Abstracts and papers found were initially screened by one reviewer. Three reviewers independently identified relevant studies, extracted data and assessed study quality, resolving disagreement by consensus.Duration of unconsciousness (including coma and vegetative state) defined as the time between trauma and objective recovery of the ability to respond to verbal commands; level of consciousness, as measured by the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS); level of cognitive functioning (LCF); functional outcomes, as measured by Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) or by Disability Rating Scale; negative effects (e.g. increased intracranial pressure).Three studies (one RCT and two CCTs) with 68 traumatic brain-injured patients in total, most of whom were road accident victims, met the inclusion criteria. The overall methodological quality was poor and studies differed widely in terms of study design and conduct. Moreover, due to the diversity in reporting of outcome measures, a quantitative metanalysis was not possible. None of the three studies provided useful and valid results on outcomes of clinical relevance for coma patients.This systematic review indicates that there is no reliable evidence to support the effectiveness of multisensory stimulation programmes in patients in coma or the vegetative state.