Citation

Cullen NK, Crescini C, Bayley MT. PM R 2009; 1(12): 1069-1076.

Affiliation

Neuro Rehabilitation Program, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute; and the Division of Physiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada M5G 2A2(dagger).

Copyright

(Copyright © 2009, American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Publisher Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.pmrj.2009.09.013

PMID

19926548

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the functional outcomes of patients with anoxic brain injury (AnBI) compared with control patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) during inpatient rehabilitation. DESIGN: Matched case-controlled design. SETTING: Inpatient neurorehabilitation program. PARTICIPANTS: Fifteen patients with AnBI and 15 patients with TBI. METHODS: Data of 15 patients with a primary diagnosis of AnBI were retrospectively reviewed and matched to 15 patients with TBI admitted within the same time frame on age, acute care length of stay, and functional status at admission. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Functional outcome was assessed by the use of the Functional Independence Measure (FIM). RESULTS: Compared with the control patients with TBI, patients with AnBI achieved significantly lower FIM motor gain (16.3 +/- 15.6 versus 5.7 +/- 10.7, respectively) and efficiency scores (0.27 +/- 0.28 versus 0.06 +/- 0.13), discharge FIM cognition scores (25.9 +/- 5.9 versus 21.7 +/- 7.3), total FIM gain (22.5 +/- 19.6 versus 9.1 +/- 12.1), and total FIM efficiency scores (0.39 +/- 0.38 versus 0.10 +/- 0.16; all P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest a slower rate of recovery for patients with AnBI compared with TBI, with physical recovery being slower than cognitive recovery as measured by the FIM during inpatient rehabilitation when matched according to preinjury characteristics and functional status at rehabilitation admission. Future studies on larger samples of patients with AnBI and TBI that use a case-controlled design and longer-term outcome measurement are warranted to further clarify the differences in functional outcomes between these groups and to assess whether optimal rehabilitation interventions differ for these groups.

Language: en