• Akhil Deepika, A R Prabhuraj, Amrit Saikia, and Dhaval Shukla.
• Department of Neurosurgery, National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS), Bangalore, 560029, India.
• Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2015 Nov 1; 157 (11): 2033-8.

BackgroundMarshall computed tomographic (CT) classification is widely used as a predictor of outcome. However, this grading system lacks the following variables, which are found to be useful predictors: subarachnoid/intraventricular hemorrhage, extradural hematoma, and extent of basal cistern compression. A new classification called the Rotterdam grading system, incorporating the above variables, was proposed later. In the original paper, this system was found to have superior discrimination as compared to Marshall grading, however, Rotterdam grading has not been validated widely. We aimed to compare the discriminatory power of both grading systems.MethodsThis is a prospective study of patients with moderate and severe TBI (Glasgow coma scale (GCS) 3-12) who presented to our casualty. All the patients were followed up for 2 weeks to determine early mortality. The discriminatory power of each grading system was determined using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).ResultsA total of 134 patients, mean age 38.3 (±15.7) years, were recruited for study. The overall mortality was 11.2 %. The mean GCS of these patients was 9.6 (±2.3). There was good correlation between Marshall and Rotterdam grading, r = 0.68 (significant at 0.01 level). The Marshall CT classification had reasonable discrimination (AUC - 0.707), and Rotterdam grading had good discrimination (AUC - 0.681).ConclusionsBoth Marshal and Rotterdam grading systems are good in predicting early mortality after moderate and severe TBI. As the Rotterdam system also includes additional variables like subarachnoid hemorrhage, it may be preferable, particularly in patients with diffuse injury.

17 keywords...

hide…