Search

The degree of disability that is acceptable to patients following traumatic brain injury (TBI) continues to be debated. While the dichotomization of outcome on the Glasgow Outcome Score (GOSE) into 'favourable' and 'unfavourable' continues to guide clinical decisions, this may not reflect an individual's subjective experience. The aim of this study is to assess how patients' self-reported quality of life (QoL) relates to objective outcome assessments and how it compares to other debilitating neurosurgical pathologies, including subarachnoid haemorrhage (SAH) and cervical myelopathy.A retrospective analysis of over 1300 patients seen in Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK with TBI, SAH and patients pre- and post- cervical surgery was performed. QoL was assessed using the SF-36 questionnaire. Kruskal-Wallis test was used to analyse the difference in SF-36 domain scores between the four unpaired patient groups. To determine how the point of dichotomization of GOSE into 'favourable' and 'unfavourable' outcome affected QOL, SF-36 scores were compared between GOSE and mRS.There was a statistically significant difference in the median Physical Component Score (PCS) and Mental Component Score (MCS) of SF-36 between the three neurosurgical pathologies. Patients with TBI and SAH scored higher on most SF-36 domains when compared with cervical myelopathy patients in the severe category. While patients with Upper Severe Disability on GOSE showed significantly higher PC and MC scores compared to GOSE 3, there was a significant degree of variability in individual responses across the groups.A significant number of patients following TBI and SAH have better self-reported QOL than cervical spine patients and patients' subjective perception and expectations following injury do not always correspond to objective disability. These results can guide discussion of treatment and outcomes with patients and families.