Glasgow coma scale components as predictors of outcomes in conservatively managed head injury patients: a prospective observational study

Akshay Satish Sapkal; Ajay Dnyanoba Subhedar; Parvez Abdul Jabbar Mujawar

doi:10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20254378

Authors

Akshay Satish Sapkal Department of General Surgery, Shri Bhausaheb Hire Government Medical College & Hospital, Dhule, Maharashtra, India
Ajay Dnyanoba Subhedar Department of Surgery, Shri Bhausaheb Hire Government Medical College & Hospital, Dhule, Maharashtra, India
Parvez Abdul Jabbar Mujawar Department of General Surgery, Shri Bhausaheb Hire Government Medical College & Hospital, Dhule, Maharashtra, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20254378

Keywords:

Conservative management, Glasgow coma scale, Prognosis, Traumatic brain injury

Abstract

Background: Traumatic brain injury remains a leading cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide. The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) serves as a fundamental tool for assessing neurological status and predicting outcomes in head injury patients. To assess individual components of the Glasgow Coma Scale and identify which parameter demonstrates the most favorable outcome in conservative management and to compare GCS scores at admission, discharge, 3 months and 6 months post-injury.

Methods: This study was conducted at a tertiary care center in over 18 months. 164 patients aged 18-60 years with head injuries managed conservatively were enrolled. GCS scores were recorded at admission, discharge, 3 months and 6 months. Statistical analysis was performed using paired t-tests and chi-square tests, with significance set at p<0.05.

Results: Majority were males (90.9%) with a mean age of 35.2 years. Road traffic accidents accounted for 45.7% of injuries. At admission, 56.7% had severe head injury (GCS 3-8), 41.5% moderate (GCS 9-12) and 1.8% mild (GCS 13-15). Overall mortality was 7.9%. By 6 months, 91.5% achieved near-normal function (GCS 13-15). Paired t-tests revealed significant improvement in all GCS components: eye response (+1.66 points, p<0.001), verbal response (+2.23 points, p<0.001) and motor response (+2.44 points, p<0.001).

Conclusions: Conservative management yields excellent outcomes in appropriately selected head injury patients. The motor component of GCS demonstrates superior prognostic value and should be emphasized in clinical decision-making.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Pickett W, Ardern C, Brison RJ. A population-based study of potential brain injuries requiring emergency care. CMAJ. 2001;165(3):288-92.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Traumatic Brain Injury & Concussion. Atlanta: CDC; 2023. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/traumaticbraininjury. Accessed on 21 August 2025.

Kamal VK, Agrawal D, Pandey RM. Epidemiology, clinical characteristics and outcomes of traumatic brain injury: Evidences from integrated level 1 trauma center in India. J Neurosci Rural Pract. 2016;7(4):515-25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/0976-3147.188637

Teasdale G, Jennett B. Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness: a practical scale. Lancet. 1974;304(7872):81-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(74)91639-0

Teasdale G, Murray G, Parker L, Jennett B. Adding up the Glasgow Coma Score. Acta Neurochir Suppl (Wien). 1979;28:13-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-4088-8_2

Teasdale G, Maas A, Lecky F, Manley G, Stocchetti N, Murray G. The Glasgow Coma Scale at 40 years: standing the test of time. Lancet Neurol. 2014;13(8):844-54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(14)70120-6

Carney N, Totten AM, O'Reilly C, Ullman JS, Hawryluk GW, Bell MJ, et al. Guidelines for the management of severe traumatic brain injury, fourth edition. Neurosurgery. 2017;80(1):6-15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0000000000001432

Chu S, Sheth K. Decompressive craniectomy in neurocritical care. Curr Treat Options Neurol. 2015;17(6):330. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11940-014-0330-5

Hutchinson PJ, Kolias AG, Timofeev IS, Corteen EA, Czosnyka M, Timothy J, et al. Trial of decompressive craniectomy for traumatic intracranial hypertension. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(12):1119-30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1605215

Williams RF, Magnotti LJ, Croce MA, Hargraves BB, Fabian TC. Impact of decompressive craniectomy on functional outcome after severe traumatic brain injury. J Trauma. 2009;66(6):1570-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0b013e3181a594c4

Signorini DF, Andrews PJ, Jones PA, Wardlaw JM, Miller JD. Predicting survival using simple clinical variables: a case study in traumatic brain injury. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1999;66(1):20-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.66.1.20

Kotwica Z, Jakubowski JK. Head-injured adult patients with GCS of 3 on admission--who have a chance to survive. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 1995;133(1-2):56-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01404948

Admassie D, Melaku T, Tesema A, Chanie ES, Minuye B, Milkias B, et al. Incidence of mortality and its predictors among patients with head injury admitted to adult intensive care unit: A retrospective cohort study. PLoS One. 2022;17(10):275438.

deGuise E, leBlanc J, Feyz M, Meyer K, Duplantie J, Thomas H, et al. Long-term outcome after severe traumatic brain injury: the McGill interdisciplinary prospective study. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2008;23(5):294-303. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.HTR.0000336842.53338.f4

Agrawal D, Rao KS, Jha RA, Gowda NK, Tiwari D, Sinha S, et al. Outcome in 2068 patients of head injury: Experience at a level 1 trauma centre in India. Asian J Neurosurg. 2016;11(2):143-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/1793-5482.145081

Malav I, Singh H, Jain A, Pal V, Sharma R. Pattern of head injury in central India population. Int J Res Med Sci. 2017;5(7):2932-6.

Povlishock JT, Katz DI. Update of neuropathology and neurological recovery after traumatic brain injury. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2005;20(1):76-94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00001199-200501000-00008