Common data elements for neuroimaging of traumatic brain injury: pediatric considerations.

Pediatric Neurosurgery, Massachusetts General Hospital , Boston, Massachusetts 02114, USA.
Journal of neurotrauma (Impact Factor: 4.25). 06/2011; 29(4):629-33. DOI: 10.1089/neu.2011.1927
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT As part of the Traumatic Brain Injury Common Data Elements project, a large-scale effort to define common data elements across a variety of domains, including neuroimaging, special considerations for pediatric patients were introduced. This article is an extension of that initial work, in which pediatric-specific pathoanatomical entities, technical considerations, interpretation paradigms, and safety considerations were reviewed. The goal of this review was to outline differences and specific information relevant to optimal performance and proper interpretation of neuroimaging in pediatric patients with traumatic brain injury. The long-range goal of this project is to facilitate data sharing as well as to provide critical infrastructure for potential clinical trials in this major public health area.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Head injury in children is one of the most common causes of death and disability in the US and, increasingly, worldwide. This chapter reviews the causes, patterns, pathophysiology, and treatment of head injury in children across the age spectrum, and compares pediatric head injury to that in adults. Classification of head injury in children can be organized according to severity, pathoanatomic type, or mechanism. Response to injury and repair mechanisms appear to vary at different ages, and these may influence optimal treatment; however, much work is still needed before investigation leads to clearly effective clinical interventions. This is true both for the more severe injuries as well as those at the milder end of the injury spectrum, the latter of which have received increasing attention. In this chapter, neuroassessment tools for each age, newer imaging modalities including magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and specific pediatric management issues, including intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring and seizure prophylaxis, are reviewed. Finally, specific head injury patterns and functional outcomes relevant to pediatric patients are discussed. While head injury is common, the number of head-injured children is significantly smaller than the corresponding adult head-injured population. When divided further by specific ages, injury types, and other sources of heterogeneity, properly powered clinical research is likely to require large data sets that will allow for stratification across variables, including age. While much has been learned in the past several decades, further study will be required to determine the best management practices for optimizing recovery in individual pediatric patients. This approach is likely to depend on collaborative international head injury databases that will allow researchers to better understand the nuanced evolution of different types of head injury in patients at each age, and the pathophysiologic, treatment-related, and genetic factors that influence recovery. © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
    Handbook of Clinical Neurology 01/2015; 127:219-42. DOI:10.1016/B978-0-444-52892-6.00015-5
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The previous articles in this compendium reviewed the past, present, and future status of the diagnosis, prognosis, treatment, and prevention of mild traumatic brain injury in the adult population. This article will discuss the issue of when an individual should initiate the return-to-play (or class or work) protocol. The clinical criterion to initiate the return-to-play protocol consists of neuropsychological performance that returns to baseline and is stable, with no reported symptoms. Recent functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies raise serious questions about these clinical criteria. fMRI results in individuals with concussion are different from those of normal controls. Does this difference represent cortical reorganization and/or cortical dysfunction? If the imaging results reflect neuroplastic reorganization, then the initiation of the return-to-play protocol is acceptable. However, if the imaging differences indicate cortical dysfunction, then initiation of the return-to-play protocol would not be advised. This article will describe the problem, the data available to address this problem, and future research needs.
    Seminars in Speech and Language 08/2014; 35(3):234-40. DOI:10.1055/s-0034-1384685
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Advanced neuroimaging contributes to a greater understanding of brain pathology following a traumatic brain injury (TBI) and has the ability to guide neurorehabilitation decisions. When integrated with the school-based psychoeducational assessment of a child with a TBI, neuroimaging can provide a different perspective when interpreting educational and behavioral variables relevant to school-based neurorehabilitation. School psychologists conducting traditional psychoeducational assessments of children with TBI seldom obtain and integrate neuroimaging, despite its availability. This article presents contextual information on the medical assessment of TBI, major types of neuroimaging, and networks of the brain. A case study illustrates the value of incorporating neuroimaging into the standard school-based psychoeducational evaluations of children with traumatic brain injury.
    Neurorehabilitation 01/2014; 34(3). DOI:10.3233/NRE-141058 · 1.74 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 16, 2014