Surgical treatment of central herniation in severely-head injured patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To determine the characteristics of treatment and diagnosis, surgical timing and surgical methods in severely head-injured patients with central herniation. Methods Twenty patients with central herniation caused by contusions and lacerations of the bilateral frontal lobes hospitalized from July 2010 to December 2012 were retrospectively reviewed. There were 11 males and 9 females, at mean age of 42 years (range, 18-70 years). Injury was caused by traffic accidents in 15 patients, falls in 3 and fighting events in 2. Eight patients were treated immediately on admission and twelve patients underwent emergency operation.All the operations involved simultaneous bilateral craniectomy for decompression, including bilateral decompressive craniectomy in 6 patients and unilateral decompressive craniectomy in 14 patients. Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment were used to evaluated outcome evaluation and cognitive impairment respectively. Complications were recorded. Results All patients were followed up for 6-12 months (mean, 8 months). According to GOS, good recovery was presented in 10 patients, moderate disability occurred in 6, severe disability in 2, vegetative state in 1, and death in 1. Eleven patients suffered severe mental disorders especially personality change and disturbance of intelligence, and restored after 12 months. Five patients were complicated by epilepsy and two hydrocephalus. Conclusions For central herniation in patients with severe head injury, an emergent surgery is necessary if there exist conscious disturbance and pupil aggravations, hematoma enlargement and significant displacement of midline structure. Timely bilateral balance decompressive craniectomy is effective to reduce the mortality and disability and improve quality of life. Key words: Brain injuries; Encephalocele; Decompression, surgical
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".