Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Retrospective cohort study finds increased hydrocephalus risk post-traumatic brain injury and hemorrhagic stroke, indicating a need for surveillance.
Objective: This study aimed to provide evidence on the long-term risk and comparative outcomes of hydrocephalus, a serious complication of traumatic brain injury (TBI) and hemorrhagic stroke (HS). Setting: The study analyzed data from the Korean National Health Insurance Service-National Sample Cohort (2002-2013). Data from 2002 to 2005 were used as a washout period, and cases identified from 2005 to 2013 were included in the analysis. New-onset hydrocephalus was defined as at least 2 medical claims with code G91 of the International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision. Participants: A total of 17 331 patients diagnosed with TBI or HS were matched with 86 655 controls using propensity score matching. Design: A retrospective cohort study comparing patients with TBI or HS to matched controls. Main Measures: Crude incidence rates (IRs), incidence rate ratios (IRRs), and adjusted hazard ratios were estimated using time-stratified Cox models over a 9-year follow-up period. Results: The incidence of hydrocephalus was significantly higher in the case group (IR, 1.88 per 1000 person-years) than in the control group (IR, 0.10). The overall IRR was 19.64 (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.30-29.00). Stratified analyses showed an IRR of 8.21 (95% CI, 5.32-12.68) for TBI and 35.49 (95% CI, 20.53-61.36) for HS. The adjusted hazard ratios declined over time but remained elevated for up to 6 years post-diagnosis. Risk was high in younger individuals, smokers, and alcohol users. Conclusion: TBI and HS are associated with a substantially increased long-term risk of hydrocephalus, especially in the early years following diagnosis. HS confers a greater risk than TBI. These findings underscore the need for prolonged surveillance in high-risk individuals and appropriate management of hydrocephalus.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bae et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: