Concussion in Non-athletes: Assessment of Cognition and Symptomatology (CONTACTS) study protocol - an exploratory cohort study investigating the utility of sports concussion assessment tools and salivary microRNAs to diagnose concussion in NHS patients.

INTRODUCTION: Concussion is a complex pathophysiological process with a wide range of non-specific signs and symptoms. There are currently no objective diagnostic tests to identify concussion, and diagnosis relies solely on history and examination. Recent research has identified a unique panel of microRNAs (miRNAs) that distinguish between concussed and non-concussed rugby players. This study aims to assess the diagnostic utility of salivary miRNAs in concussion for a sample of UK National Health Service patients and whether well-established sports-related concussion (SRC) assessment tools may be translated into the emergency department (ED). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Concussion in Non-athletes: Assessment of Cognition and Symptomatology is a single-centre, prospective, two-phase cohort study. The concussed cohort will consist of participants with maxillofacial trauma and concurrent concussion. The control cohort will consist of participants with isolated limb trauma and no evidence of concussion. Participants will be recruited in the ED and saliva samples will be taken to identify the presence of miRNAs. The SRC assessments being investigated include the Sports Concussion Assessment Test, Fifth Edition (SCAT5), the Immediate Post-Concussion Assessment and Cognitive Testing (ImPACT) and the ImPACT Quick. Follow-up will be at 24-48 hours in-hospital and remotely via telephone and email at 14 days and 6 months. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was granted in February 2021 by the West Midlands Coventry & Warwickshire Research Ethics Committee (ref 20/WM/0299). The investigators intend to submit their study findings for publication in peer-reviewed journals and to disseminate study findings via presentation at academic meetings. The results will also form part of a doctorate thesis, registered at the University of Birmingham.

Comparison of outcomes of neurosurgical operations performed before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: a matched cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine how the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic affected outcomes for all operatively managed neurosurgical patients, not only those positive for SARS-CoV-2. DESIGN: Matched cohort (pairwise method). SETTING: A single tertiary neurosurgical referral centre at a large UK Major Trauma Centre. PARTICIPANTS: During the first COVID-19 wave, 231 neurosurgical cases were performed. These cases were matched to cases from 2019. Cases were matched for age (±10 years), primary pathology and surgical procedure. Cases were excluded from analysis if either the age could not be matched to within 10 years, or the primary pathology or procedure was too unique. After exclusions, 191 cases were included in final analysis. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and postoperative pulmonary complications. Secondary outcomes included Glasgow Outcome Score (GOS) on discharge, length of stay (LoS), operative and anaesthetic times and grade of primary surgeon. An exploratory outcome was the SARS-CoV-2 status of patients. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the pandemic and matched cohorts in 30-day mortality, pulmonary complications, discharge GOS, LoS, operative or anaesthetic times. There was a significant difference in the variation of grade of primary surgeon. Only 2.2% (n=5) of patients had a SARS-CoV-2 positive swab. CONCLUSION: During the first UK wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, the mortality, morbidity and functional outcomes of operatively managed neurosurgical patients at University Hospitals Birmingham were not significantly affected compared with normal practice. The grade of primary surgeon was significantly more senior and adds to the growing body of evidence that demonstrates how the pandemic has negatively impacted UK surgical training. Mixing COVID-19 positive, unknown and negative cases did not significantly impact on outcomes and indicates that further research is required to support the implementation of evidence-based surgical pathways, such as COVID-light sites, throughout the next stage of the pandemic.