Neurosurg Focus
-
Review Comparative Study
The evolution of the treatment of traumatic cerebrovascular injury during wartime.
The approach to traumatic craniocervical vascular injury has evolved significantly in recent years. Conflicts prior to Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom were characterized by minimal intervention in the setting of severe penetrating head injury, in large part due to limited far-forward resource availability. Consequently, sequelae of penetrating head injury like traumatic aneurysm formation remained poorly characterized with a paucity of pathophysiological descriptions. ⋯ As a result of the rapid field resuscitation and early cranial decompression, patients are surviving longer, which has led to diagnosis and treatment of entities that had previously gone undiagnosed. Therefore, in this paper the authors' purpose is to review their experience with severe traumatic brain injury complicated by injury to the craniocervical vasculature. Historical approaches will be reviewed, and the importance of modern endovascular techniques will be emphasized.
-
Review Comparative Study
Can surgery improve neurological function in penetrating spinal injury? A review of the military and civilian literature and treatment recommendations for military neurosurgeons.
Penetrating spinal injury (PSI), although an infrequent injury in the civilian population, is not an infrequent injury in military conflicts. Throughout military history, the role of surgery in the treatment of PSI has been controversial. The US is currently involved in 2 military campaigns, the hallmark of both being the widespread use of various explosive devices. The authors reviewed the evidence for or against the use of decompressive laminectomy to treat PSI to provide a triservice (US Army, Navy, and Air Force) consensus and treatment recommendations for military neurosurgeons and spine surgeons. ⋯ Based on the authors' military and civilian PubMed literature search, most of the evidence suggests that decompressive laminectomy does not improve neurological function in patients with PSI. However, there are serious methodological shortcomings in both literature groups. For this and other reasons, neurosurgeons from the US Air Force, Army, and Navy collectively believe that decompression should still be considered for any patient with an incomplete neurological injury and continued spinal canal compromise, ideally within 24-48 hours of injury; the patient should be stabilized concurrently if it is believed that the spinal injury is unstable. The authors recognize the highly controversial nature of this topic and hope that this literature review and the proposed treatment recommendations will be a valuable resource for deployed neurosurgeons. Ultimately, the deployed neurosurgeon must make the final treatment decision based on his or her opinion of the literature, individual abilities, and facility resources available.