RELATIONSHIP OF THE MARSHALL CLASSIFICATION IN THE EVALUATION OF PATIENTS WITH TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY

Authors

  • JORGE MUÑANTE-APARCANA HOSPITAL REGIONAL DE ICA, ICA,PERÚ

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.35563/rmp.v9i2.333

Keywords:

Marshall, Escala de coma de glasgow, Traumatismo craneoencefálico

Abstract

Introduction: ECT constitutes a serious public health problem in the world, not only because of its magnitude but also because it affects young people of productive age. Objective: The main objective of this bibliographic review is to generate knowledge about the relationship of the Marshall classification in the evaluation of patients with ECT. Materials and methods: It is a descriptive study of literature search and has been carried out in Pubmed, Medline, Scielo, libraries of national and international universities. Results: It was observed that the average was between 35 and 46 years old. Most were young male adults between 60% and 80%. The main mechanism of trauma were falls 48%. The severity of ECT, according to the Glasgow Coma Scale, varied frequencies with similar ranges were found: mild ECT between 40% to 70%, moderate ECT from 20% to 40% and severe ECT around 10%. The distribution of the tomographic findings in adults with ECT according to the Marshall scale was: Diffuse type I injury (53.87%) (8% -60%), Diffuse type II injury 21% (16% -26%); diffuse type III injury 8.5% (9.7% -18.3%); diffuse type IV injury 8.5% (4.98% -12%); focal lesion not evacuated 2.6% (0.51% -4.66%). Conclusions: Most of the patients were young adults and males. Mild ECT was the most prevalent. According to the Marshall classification, the diffuse type I, II injury was the most frequent. The Marshall tomographic classification is significantly related to the prognosis to predict the recovery of patients with ECT.

Downloads

Published

2020-08-29

Issue

Section

REVIEW ARTICLE

How to Cite

RELATIONSHIP OF THE MARSHALL CLASSIFICATION IN THE EVALUATION OF PATIENTS WITH TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY. (2020). Revista Médica Panacea, 9(2), 130-134. https://doi.org/10.35563/rmp.v9i2.333