Search

Background Sport-related structural brain injury (SRSBI) is intracranial pathology incurred during sport. Management mirrors that of non-sport-related brain injury. An empirical vacuum exists regarding return to play (RTP) following SRSBI. Objective To provide key insight for operative management and RTP following SRSBI using a (1) focused systematic review and (2) survey of expert opinions. Methods A systematic literature review of SRSBI from 2012 to present in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and a cross-sectional survey of RTP in SRSBI by 31 international neurosurgeons was conducted. Results Of 27 included articles out of 241 systematically reviewed, 9 (33.0%) case reports provided RTP information for 12 athletes. To assess expert opinion, 31 of 32 neurosurgeons (96.9%) provided survey responses. For acute, asymptomatic SRSBI, 12 (38.7%) would not operate. Of the 19 (61.3%) who would operate, midline shift (63.2%) and hemorrhage size > 10 mm (52.6%) were the most common indications. Following SRSBI with resolved hemorrhage, with or without burr holes, the majority of experts (>75%) allowed RTP to high-contact/collision sports at 6 to 12 mo. Approximately 80% of experts did not endorse RTP to high-contact/collision sports for athletes with persistent hemorrhage. Following craniotomy for SRSBI, 40% to 50% of experts considered RTP at 6 to 12 mo. Linear regression revealed that experts allowed earlier RTP at higher levels of play (β = -0.58, 95% CI -0.111, -0.005, P = .033). Conclusion RTP decisions following structural brain injury in athletes are markedly heterogeneous. While individualized RTP decisions are critical, aggregated expert opinions from 31 international sports neurosurgeons provide key insight. Level of play was found to be an important consideration in RTP determinations.

Traditionally, neurosurgeons have responded to calls to treat new patients or address emergent, acute neurosurgical pathology in the hospitals they staff as part of their duty to the medical profession and community. Due to increasing financial pressures placed upon neurosurgical practice from hospitals and regulatory mandates, remuneration for neurosurgeon availability to serve on trauma call has become more frequent and is increasingly seen as essential. In this study, we present the first peer-review published survey of neurosurgical emergency and trauma call coverage patterns, scope, schedules, compensation, liability exposure, and call cessation. We surveyed all practicing neurosurgeon members of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and Congress of Neurological Surgeons with a 24% response rate. The vast majority of respondents (86%), through their practice, provide 24/7/365 trauma coverage at their primary hospital site. About a third (29%) of respondents have been sued by a patient seen in the emergency department. Twenty percent of respondents anticipate retiring within the next 2 yr. Understanding trauma call coverage, remuneration, and the barriers to taking call provide needed transparency to neurosurgeons who are providing emergency, life-saving services for patients across the country. An understanding of supply and demand forces governing call coverage also assists the field in necessary workforce planning and innovation in providing access to needed, timely acute neurosurgical care.