English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Military units lack the ability to quickly, objectively, and accurately assess individuals that have suffered a closed head injury for structural brain injury and functional brain impairments in forward settings, where neurological assessment equipment and expertise may be lacking. With acute traumatic brain injury patients, detached medical providers are often faced with a decision to wait and observe or medically evacuate, both of which have cascading consequences. Structural brain injury assessment devices, when employed in forward environments, have the potential to reduce the risk of undiagnosed and/or mismanaged traumatic brain injuries given their high negative predictive value and suggested increased specificity compared to common subjective clinical decision rules. These handheld devices are portable and have an ease of use, from combat medic to physician, allowing for use in austere environments, safely keeping soldiers with their teams when able and suggesting further evaluation via computed tomography (CT) scan when warranted. Methods Data collected on 13 encounters at 5 locations were retrospectively analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results A total number of 13 examinations were performed using the BrainScope One device during the 9-month deployment. The Structural Injury Classification was negative for 11 of the patients. Two of the 11 patients underwent head CT scans, which confirmed the absence of intracranial hemorrhage. Of the two positive Structural Injury Classification exams, one was CT negative and no CT was performed for the other based on clinical judgment. Conclusion The data from this study suggest that structural brain injury devices may provide value by ruling out serious brain injury pathology while limiting excessive medical evacuations from austere settings, where neurological assessment equipment and expertise may be lacking, reducing unnecessary head CT scans.

An Observation of Application of Structural Brain Injury Devices for Traumatic Brain Injury Evaluation in Austere Military Prehospital Settings