Home > Journals > Minerva Anestesiologica > Past Issues > Minerva Anestesiologica 1998 May;64(5) > Minerva Anestesiologica 1998 May;64(5):243-6

CURRENT ISSUE
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Reprints

MINERVA ANESTESIOLOGICA

A Journal on Anesthesiology, Resuscitation, Analgesia and Intensive Care


Official Journal of the Italian Society of Anesthesiology, Analgesia, Resuscitation and Intensive Care
Indexed/Abstracted in: Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 2,623


eTOC

 

Vth SECTION
SAH-PATIENTS OUTCOME, COMPLICATIONS AND PREVENTION, FUTURE PROSPECTS  PROCEEDINGS OF THE VIDEOCONFERENCE - October 5, 1996
SUBARACHNOID HEMORRHAGE: A MULTIDISCIPLINARY APPROACH - II
FREEfree


Minerva Anestesiologica 1998 May;64(5):243-6

Copyright © 1998 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: Italian

Clinical evaluation of surgical results in SAH-patients

De Santis A.

Università degli Studi - Milano, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, IRCCS, Istituto di Neurochirurgia


FULL TEXT  


The evaluation of the surgical results in patients operated on for intracranial aneurysms is still controversial, since a satisfactory method able to provide complete informations and ease to use is not still available. The more often used evaluation criteria provide standardized patterns, but the excessive simplifications affect the reliability of the final evaluation. Therefore, I suggest a brand new scale called Clinical Social Emotional Evaluation (CESE), based upon the following domains: neurological evaluation, psychomotor autonomy, return to prior job, behavioural and affective disorders, social reintegration and occurrence of seizures. In order to validate this scale, 190 patients operated on for intracranial aneurysms were assested. Different scales provided different results. In detail, the number of the “best results” according to CESE was smaller (48%) when compared to the number provided by GOS (80%) and Rankin (62%). Nevertheless, the smaller amount of good results does not imply an overall worsening of the outcome. It is due to the different selection criteria employed by the diverse scales. Indeed, CESE selects groups of patients very homogeneously, whilst other scales include much more eterogeneous subjects. Thus, CESE would prove it-self to be a reliable, accurate and easy to use evaluation scale.

top of page

Publication History

Cite this article as

Corresponding author e-mail