• Frederick M Burkle, Kevin S Hadley, Leah L Ridge, Jan K Herman, and Firas H Kobeissy.
• Harvard Humanitarian Initiative, Harvard University, and T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.
• Mil Med. 2022 Jul 1; 187 (7-8): e933-e937.

IntroductionIn this report, we discuss the controversy of the diverse traumatic brain injury (TBI) categorization and taxonomy and the need to develop a new multidimensional and multidisciplinary categorization system that can be an aid in improved diagnostic and prognostic outcomes. Of interest, the heterogeneity of TBI marks the major obstacle to develop effective therapeutic interventions. Currently, the Glasgow Coma Scale has been utilized to guide in the prognosis and clinical management of TBI; it does not encompass the pathophysiological mechanisms leading to neurological deficits that can impede therapeutic interventions and consequently the failure of clinical trials. An unfortunate gap exists between advances in TBI research and existing U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) definitions, categorization, and management. Part I illustrates a unique posterior-focused TBI case report that does not fit any existing TBI definitions. Part II summarizes new animal-based TBI research that supports the case report as a legitimate TBI category. Part III critiques existing TBI criteria and their controversies.MethodsCurrent DoD definitions and decision-making protocols based on concussion time alone are reviewed and compared to the myriad of additional TBI definitions that further illustrate the marked differences in definitions, especially in mild TBIs.ResultsThe DoD definitions are not consistent with what academic research and science bring to the debate. With increasing world conflicts and wars, evaluators are not prepared to accept, evaluate, and properly manage those TBIs that are not associated with immediate levels of unconsciousness alone as the prime determinant of diagnosis and long-term severity. Despite comprehensive research, current understanding among decision-makers of progressive pathology of non-hemispheric TBIs remains limited, inconsistent, and confusing.ConclusionsThis dilemma requires a multidisciplinary, science/medicine-led panel to actively reassess TBI criteria that take into consideration the latest research including non-cerebral hemispheric injuries. We recommend that DoD/Veterans Affairs establish a commission to regularly review the academic-related scientific evidence and incorporate these findings in a timely fashion into their operational definitions. This would guarantee that recognition, diagnosis, and follow-up of all TBIs are properly understood, managed, and documented.© The Association of Military Surgeons of the United States 2021. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

11 keywords...

hide…