• Richard Francis, Barbara A Gregson, and A David Mendelow.
• Neurosurgical Trials Unit, Newcastle University, 3-4 Claremont Terrace, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4AE, UK. Richard.francis2@ncl.ac.uk.
• Acta Neurochir. Suppl. 2016 Jan 1; 122: 17-9.

IntroductionRecent research has been equivocal regarding the usefulness of intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring for traumatic intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH). We aimed to investigate attitudes of clinicians from as wide an international audience as possible.Materials And MethodsA SurveyMonkey® questionnaire was distributed to individuals, including members of the Society of British Neurological Surgeons, the European Brain Injury Consortium, the Euroacademia Multidisciplinaria Neurotraumatologica and the neurotrauma committee of the World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies.ResultsNinety-eight participants from at least 25 different countries completed the survey (86 surgeons). ICP was routinely monitored by 76 % and would be monitored by 5 % more if they had equipment. ICP monitoring was valued (0 = not at all important, 10 = critically important) as 10 by 21 % (median = 8; Q1 = 7, Q3 = 9). Responders were aware of 16 trials that investigated the value of ICP monitoring in neurotrauma, including BEST TRIP (n = 35), Rescue ICP (n = 13) and DECRA (n = 8). Other results are discussed.DiscussionDespite equivocation in the literature, we found that ICP monitoring continues to be routinely performed and is highly valued. Interestingly, only 36 % of responders were aware of the BEST TRIP trial, which found no difference in outcome between patients with a head injury managed with or without ICP monitoring.

34 keywords...

hide…