Prediction of Mortality and Morbidity After Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: A Comparison Between Rotterdam and Richmond Computed Tomography Scan Scoring System

• Published in: World neurosurgery Vol. 178; pp. e371 - e381
• Main Authors: Habibzadeh, Adrina, Andishgar, Aref, Kardeh, Sina, Keshavarzian, Omid, Taheri, Reza, Tabrizi, Reza, Keshavarz, Pedram
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01.10.2023
• Subjects: Adult; Brain Injuries, Traumatic - diagnostic imaging; Head CT scan; Humans; Middle Aged; Morbidity; Prognosis; Prognostic models; Retrospective Studies; Richmond scores; Rotterdam score; Tertiary Care Centers; Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods; Traumatic brain injury; Young Adult; RASH; Traumatic brain injury; HTN; aOR; EDH; DM; Rotterdam score; Prognostic models; GOS-E; AUC; CT; GCS; Richmond scores; ICU; IVH; TBI; Head CT scan; SAH
• ISSN: 1878-8750; 1878-8769; 1878-8769
• DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2023.07.076

Accurate prediction of the morbidity and mortality outcomes of traumatic brain injury patients is still challenging. In the present study, we aimed to compare the predictive value of the Richmond and Rotterdam scoring systems as two novel computed tomography-based predictive models. We retrospectively analyzed 1400 subjects who suffered from severe traumatic brain injury and were admitted to Emtiaz Hospital, a tertiary referral trauma center in Shiraz, south of Iran, from January 2018 to December 2019. We evaluated the 1-month results; considering two primary factors: mortality and morbidity. The patients’ condition was the basis for this assessment. We conducted a logistic regression analysis to determine the association between scoring systems and outcomes. To determine the optimal threshold value, we utilized the receiver operating characteristic curve model. The mean age of participants was 36.61 ± 17.58 years, respectively. Concerning predicting the mortality rate, the area under the curve (AUC) for the Rotterdam score was relatively low 0.64 (95% confidence interval: 0.60, 0.67), while the Richmond score had a higher AUC 0.74 (0.71–0.77), which demonstrated the superiority of this scoring system. Moreover, the Richmond score was more accurate for predicting 1-month morbidity with AUC: 0.71 (0.69, 0.74) versus 0.62 (0.59, 0.65). The Richmond scoring system demonstrated more accurate predictions for the present outcomes. The simplicity and predictive value of the Richmond score make this system an ideal option for use in emergency settings and centers with high patient loads.