scholarly journals Prediction and Detection of Epileptic Seizure

Author(s):  
Mohammad Zavid Parvez ◽  
Manoranjan Paul

Epilepsy is one of the common neurological disorders characterized by a sudden and recurrent malfunction of the brain that is termed “seizure”, affecting around 65 million individuals worldwide. Epileptic seizure may lead to many injuries such as fractures, submersion, burns, motor vehicle accidents and even death. It is highly possible to prevent these unwanted situations if we can predict/detect electrical changes in brain that occur prior to onset of actual seizure. When building a prediction model, the goal should be to make a model that accurately classifies preictal period (prior to a seizure onset) from interictal (period between seizures when non-seizure syndrome is observed) period. On the hand, for the detection we need to make a model that can classify ictal (actual seizure period) from non-ictal/interictal period. This chapter describes the seizure detection and prediction techniques with its background, features, recent developments, and future trends.

Author(s):  
Jean-Pierre Dollé ◽  
Jeffrey Barminko ◽  
Rene Schloss ◽  
Martin L. Yarmush

Traumatic Brain Injuries (TBI) affect up to 1.5 million people annually within the United States with as many as 250,000 being hospitalized and 50,000 dying [1]. TBI events occur when the brain experiences a sudden trauma such as a rapid deceleration of the brain that typically occurs during motor vehicle accidents. During rapid deceleration events, the brain is subjected to high inertial forces that can result in a shearing or elongation of axons that is commonly known as Diffuse Axonal Injury (DAI) [2,3].


2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoshiharu Kim ◽  
Yutaka Matsuoka ◽  
Ulrich Schnyder ◽  
Sara Freedman ◽  
Robert Ursano

Author(s):  
Kelvin Allenson ◽  
Laura Moore

Trauma related injury is the leading cause of non-obstetric maternal death.  The gravid uterus is at risk for injury, particularly during motor vehicle accidents.  Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is a means of controlling pelvic hemorrhage in the setting of trauma.  We report the use of REBOA in a hemodynamically unstable, multiply-injured young woman with viable intrauterine pregnancy.


2021 ◽  
Vol 121 ◽  
pp. 108046
Author(s):  
Mintao Lin ◽  
Jiani Chen ◽  
Sisi Li ◽  
Yingjie Qin ◽  
Xuruan Wang ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Imthiaz Manoly ◽  
Mohamed El Tahan ◽  
Maymoona Al Shuaibi ◽  
Fatimah Adel ◽  
Mohammed Al Harbi ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is the standard-of-care for treating traumatic aortic injury (TAI). Few retrospective studies compared TEVAR to open repair in blunt traumatic aortic injury (BTAI). Our objectives were to compare the early outcomes of TEVAR for blunt traumatic descending aortic injury to open repair (OR) in polytraumatic patients involved in motor vehicle accidents (MVA). Results Between February 2005 and April 2017, 71 patients with TAI due to MVA presented to our institution. All patients with descending aortic injuries were considered for open repair (n = 41) or TEVAR (n = 30) if there was no contraindication. The primary outcome was mortality, and secondary outcomes were stroke, paraplegia, intensive care unit (ICU), and hospital stay. The mean age was 28.4 ± 10.1 years in the OR group and 33.3 ± 16.6 years in TEVAR-group (P = 0.13). The injury severity scores were 41 ± 10 in the OR group and 33 ± 17 in the TEVAR group (P = 0.03). Patients in the OR group underwent emergency repair with a mean time of 0.56 ± 0.18 days from arrival. The TEVAR group had a longer time interval between arrival and procedure (2.1 ± 1.7 days, P = 0.001). The OR group had more blood transfusion (24 (58.5%) vs. 8 (27.5%), P = 0.002), renal impairment (6 (14.6%) vs. 1 (5.50%), P = 0.23), and wound infection (21 (51.2%) vs. 3 (10%), P < 0.001). Three TEVAR patients had a perioperative stroke compared to two patients in the OR group (P = 0.64). There was no difference in the mean ICU (6 ± 8.9 vs. 5.3 ± 2.9 days; P = 0.1) or hospital stay (20.1 ± 12.3 vs. 20.1 ± 18.3, P = 0.62) between the two groups. There were four deaths in the OR group and none in the TEVAR group (P = 0.13). Conclusion The results of TEVAR were comparable with the open repair for traumatic aortic injury with good early postoperative outcomes. TEVAR repair could be associated with lower mortality, blood transfusion, and infective complications. However, the complexity of the injury and technical challenges were higher in the open group.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document