Search

Each year, approximately 2.5 million people experience some form of traumatic brain injury (TBI) in Europe. One million of these are admitted to hospital and 75 000 will die. TBI represents a major cause of death and disability, particularly among those of working age. Substantial investments have been made in an effort to improve diagnosis, management and survival in TBI, but with little success. The Collaborative European Neuro-Trauma Effectiveness Research in TBI (CENTER-TBI) study promises to use the natural variability seen in the management of TBI across Europe with the application of Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER). It will generate repositories of baseline and comprehensive TBI patient data, neuroimaging, neurogenetics and biomarkers, which aim to improve the diagnosis, stratification, management and prognostication of patients with TBI.

The number of anaesthetists who are involved in magnetic resonance (MR) units is increasing. Magnetic resonance systems are becoming more powerful and interventional procedures are now possible. This paper updates information relating to safety terminology, occupational exposure, reactions to gadolinium-based contrast agents and the risk of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. Magnetic resonance examinations of patients with pacemakers are still generally contra-indicated but have been carried out in specialist centres under strictly controlled conditions. As availability of MR increases, so the education of anaesthetists, who are occasionally required to provide a service, must be considered. Anaesthesia in MR units was first described in the 1980s. Guidelines on the provision of anaesthetic services in MR units were published by the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland (AAGBI) in 2002 [1]. Since then, the number of hospitals with MR units, and hence the number of patients requiring anaesthesia for MR, has increased. While the issues relating to setting up anaesthetic services in MR have not changed, there have been a number of developments that warrant this update: Safety terminology and guidelines have changed. MR systems utilise higher magnetic-field strengths and more open designs are available. Interventional and intra-operative MR are now routine in some centres. Mobile MR scanners are increasingly used to reduce waiting lists. Although still generally contra-indicated, some patients with pacemakers have been scanned under strictly controlled conditions in specialist centres. ‘MR safe’ medical implants are now being produced. New equipment is now available for use in MR. Out-of-hours availability of MR investigations has increased. Reports of allergic reactions to MR contrast media have increased. Gadolinium based contrast agents (Gd-CAs) are associated with a varying degree of risk of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis in patients with impaired renal function. Safety guidelines and legislation In 2007 the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) updated safety guidance as a Device Bulletin [2]. Three terms are now to be used as standard in an attempt to remove any ambiguity caused by the old MR compatible system. These terms are MR conditional, MR safe and MR unsafe. MR conditional refers to an item that has been demonstrated to pose no known hazards in a specified MR environment with specified conditions of use. Many items in the MR environment will now be marked as MR conditional, and the conditions under which they can be safely used must accompany the device. This change of terminology has come about because of reports of injuries and problems with MR compatible equipment [3]. Conditions that define the specified MR environment include main magnetic field strength, spatial magnetic field gradient, dB/dt (time rate of change of the magnetic field), radio frequency (RF) field strength, and specific absorption rate. Additional conditions, including specific configurations of the item of equipment, may be required. Equipment is designated as MR safe if it presents no safety hazard to patients or personnel when it is taken into the MR examination room, provided that instructions concerning its use are correctly followed. This does not, however, guarantee that it will function normally and not interfere with the correct operation of the MR imaging equipment, with degradation of image quality. New equipment, such as infusion pumps [4], warming mattresses and temperature probes are now available. It is important to understand the manufacturers’ instructions of all equipment that is brought into the vicinity of the MR scanner. It should be recognised that the supervising MR radiographer is responsible operationally for MR safety within the controlled area and that anaesthetic staff should defer to him/her in relation to MR safety matters, in particular control of access of staff and equipment into the controlled area. Where staff are given access codes or swipe-card access to the controlled area, they should not be shared with others, nor should they provide access to others unless specifically authorised to do so. Inspired oxygen concentration The use of 100% O2 during anaesthesia should be reported to the reporting radiologist as this can produce an artefact in the form of an abnormally high signal in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) spaces in the T2 weighted fluid attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) sequence.

This is a report of a questionnaire-based survey undertaken by the National Institute for the Mentally Handicapped, Secunderabad, India. The objective was to compile information about the existing educational facilities for children with mental handicaps in the country. The study revealed that the majority of the educational facilities were managed by voluntary organisations and were found in urban areas. It was observed that there were more facilities in the southern states, and fewer in most of the northern and the northeastern regions.

We used the Ilizarov circular external fixator to treat 16 patients with persistent nonunion of the diaphysis of the humerus despite surgical treatment. All patients had pain and severe functional impairment of the affected arm. In ten, nonunion followed intramedullary nailing. We successfully treated these by a closed technique. The nail was left in place and the fracture compressed over it. The fractures of the other six patients had previously been fixed by various methods. We explored these nonunions, removed the fixation devices and excised fibrous tissue and dead bone before stabilising with the Ilizarov fixator. In five patients union was achieved. Bone grafting was not required. In the single patient in whom treatment failed, there had been a severely comminuted open fracture. All except one patient had reduction of pain, and all reported an improvement in function.

Uncertainty remains as to the role of decompressive craniectomy (DC) for primary evacuation of acute subdural haematomas (ASDH). In 2011, a collaborative group was formed in the UK with the aim of answering the following question: "What is the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of decompressive craniectomy, in comparison with craniotomy for adult patients undergoing primary evacuation of an ASDH?" The proposed RESCUE-ASDH trial (Randomised Evaluation of Surgery with Craniectomy for patients Undergoing Evacuation of Acute Subdural Haematoma) is a multicentre, pragmatic, parallel group randomised trial of DC versus craniotomy for adult head-injured patients with an ASDH. In this study, we used an online questionnaire to assess the current practice patterns in the management of ASDH in the UK and the Republic of Ireland, and to gauge neurosurgical opinion regarding the proposed RESCUE-ASDH trial.A questionnaire survey of full members of the Society of British Neurological Surgeons and members of the British Neurosurgical Trainees Association was undertaken between the beginning of May and the end of July 2012.The online questionnaire was answered by 95 neurosurgeons representing 31 of the 32 neurosurgical units managing adult head-injured patients in the UK and the Republic of Ireland. Forty-five percent of the respondents use primary DC in at least 25% of patients with ASDH. In addition, of the 22 neurosurgical units with at least two Consultant respondents, only three units (14%) showed intradepartmental agreement regarding the proportion of their patients receiving a primary DC for ASDH.The survey results demonstrate that there is significant uncertainty as to the optimal surgical technique for primary evacuation of ASDH. The fact that the majority of the respondents are willing to become collaborators in the planned RESCUE-ASDH trial highlights the relevance of this important subject to the neurosurgical community in the UK and Ireland.

In recent years there has been renewed interest in the use of steroids in sepsis and septic shock, focusing on lower doses and longer courses with the aim of supplementing a presumed under-activity of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis due to relative adrenal insufficiency or target tissue glucocorticoid resistance. An international task force of the American College of Critical Care Medicine recently published guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of what they termed “critical illness-related corticosteroid insufficiency” [1]. This paper makes important recommendations regarding steroid therapy in sepsis and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The authors also suggested biochemical definitions of relative adrenal insufficiency. A rational approach would be to use such definitions to make decisions regarding corticosteroid supplementation in critical illness. However, the authors concluded that the available literature provides no evidence to use such biochemical parameters as a basis for treating patients with supplemental steroids. This discordance, in large part, may arise from the fact that classical concepts of the HPA axis ignore many important nuances of glucocorticoid production, bioavailability and cellular action. The purpose of this chapter is to explore these nuances with particular focus on cellular and regional mechanisms of regulation of corticosteroid action, with specific reference to the context of critical illness.

BackgroundThis study explored the relation of level of socio-economic development to the course of non-affective psychosis, by extending the analysis of urban/rural differences in course in Chandigarh, India.MethodThe proportion of ‘best outcome cases between urban (n=110) and rural (n=50) catchment areas were compared at two-year follow-up, separately for CATEGO S+ and non-S+ schizophrenia.ResultsThe proportion of subjects with ‘best outcome’ ratings at the urban and rural sites, respectively, was similar for CATEGO S+ schizophrenia (29 v. 29%), but significantly different for non-S+ psychosis (26 v. 47%)ConclusionsThe fact that in rural Chandigarh, psychoses have a more favourable course than in the urban area may be explained in large part by psychoses distinct from ‘nuclear’ schizophrenia.

A two-year follow-up was conducted of a subsample of the Chandigarh cohort of first-contact schizophrenic patients from the WHO Determinants of Outcome project. The patients were those living with family members who had been interviewed initially to determine their levels of expressed emotion (EE). The interview was repeated for 74% of the relatives at one-year follow-up. A dramatic reduction had occurred in each of the EE components and in the global index. No rural relative was rated as high EE at follow-up. Of the patients included in the one-year follow-up, 86% were followed for two years. In contrast to the one-year findings, the global EE index at initial interview did not predict relapse of schizophrenia over the subsequent two years. However, there was a significant association between initial hostility and subsequent relapse. The better outcome of this cohort of schizophrenic patients compared with samples from the West is partly attributable to tolerance and acceptance by family members.

We conducted a one-year follow-up of patients who had made a first contact with psychiatric services in Chandigarh, North India, and had been assigned a diagnosis of schizophrenia. The expressed emotion (EE) of the patients' relatives was assessed early on. We found the same associations between the individual components of EE and relapse of schizophrenia as in previous Anglo-American studies, but only the association between hostility and relapse was statistically significant. Applying the same criteria as in the Anglo American studies for ‘high EE’, we found a significant relationship between high EE and relapse. This relationship was not explained by other factors often associated with higher relapse rates. We conclude that the significantly better outcome of Chandigarh first-contact patients compared with a London sample is largely due to the significantly lower proportion of high-EE relatives in the North Indian sample.

The study of Expressed emotions (EE) ows its origin to the efforts of Brown and his colleagues in London during the last two decades to understand the family environment of schizophrenic patients. It has been shown in a series of studies that the expressed emotions of the key relatives, measured in an interview shortly after the patient’s admission to hospital is highly predictive of the patients’ subsequent course of schizophrenic illness. Brown, Birley and Wing (1972) found that EE rating scales are useful tools in quantifying emotional interaction in the family when a schizophrenic family member is admitted to hospital. In a replication study, Vaughn and Leff (1976) followed up the patients for nine months after discharge from the hospital. They found a significantly higher relapse rate in those patients returning to homes with high EE relatives as compared to those living with low EE relatives.