Member-only story

Controversies in Vascular Neurosurgery: SGM Ashcroft

Esteban Cox

·6.1k Followers· Follow

Published in Controversies In Vascular Neurosurgery SGM Ashcroft

5 min read

1k View Claps

67 Respond

Save

Listen

Vascular neurosurgery is a rapidly evolving field that has seen significant advancements in recent years. However, as with any surgical specialty, there are a number of controversies that continue to be debated. One of the most contentious issues in vascular neurosurgery is the use of the SGM Ashcroft grading system to assess the severity of subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH).

The SGM Ashcroft Grading System

The SGM Ashcroft grading system was developed in 1973 by Paul Ashcroft and his colleagues at the Glasgow Institute of Neurological Sciences. The system is based on clinical examination findings and assigns a score from 0 to 5, with higher scores indicating more severe hemorrhage. The grades are as follows:

Controversies in Vascular Neurosurgery

by SGM Ashcroft

4 out of 5

Language	:	English
File size	:	7659 KB
Text-to-Speech	:	Enabled
Enhanced typesetting	:	Enabled
Print length	:	232 pages
Screen Reader	:	Supported

* Grade 0: No SAH * Grade 1: SAH confined to the basal cisterns * Grade 2: SAH extending into the sylvian fissure and/or interhemispheric fissure * Grade 3: SAH diffusely involving the cerebral hemispheres and/or brainstem * Grade 4: SAH massive and diffuse * Grade 5: SAH suprasellar extension

The SGM Ashcroft grading system has been widely used to assess the severity of SAH and to guide treatment decisions. However, the system has also been criticized for being subjective and for not taking into account the size of the aneurysm or the presence of intraventricular hemorrhage.

Controversies Surrounding the SGM Ashcroft Grading System

There are a number of controversies surrounding the use of the SGM Ashcroft grading system. One of the main criticisms is that the system is not reliable. Studies have shown that different examiners can assign different grades to the same patient, and that the grade can change over time. This inconsistency makes it difficult to use the system to compare outcomes between patients and to guide treatment decisions.

Another criticism of the SGM Ashcroft grading system is that it does not take into account the size of the aneurysm or the presence of intraventricular hemorrhage. These factors have been shown to be important predictors of outcome in SAH, and they should be considered when assessing the severity of hemorrhage.

Finally, some critics argue that the SGM Ashcroft grading system is too simplistic. The system only assigns a single grade to each patient, which does not reflect the complexity of SAH. There are a number of different factors that can affect the outcome of SAH, and the SGM Ashcroft grading system does not take all of these factors into account.

Alternatives to the SGM Ashcroft Grading System

There are a number of alternative grading systems that have been proposed for assessing the severity of SAH. One of the most commonly used alternative systems is the Hunt and Hess grading system. This system is based on clinical examination findings and assigns a score from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating more severe hemorrhage. The grades are as follows:

* Grade 1: No headache or minimal headache, stiff neck * Grade 2: Moderate to severe headache, no neurological deficit * Grade 3: Drowsiness, confusion, or focal neurological deficit * Grade 4: Stupor, hemiparesis, or aphasia * Grade 5: Coma, decerebrate or decorticate posturing

The Hunt and Hess grading system is more reliable than the SGM Ashcroft grading system, and it takes into account the presence of neurological deficits. However, the system is still not perfect, and it does not take into account the size of the aneurysm or the presence of intraventricular hemorrhage.

Another alternative grading system is the Fisher grading system. This system is based on the appearance of SAH on computed tomography (CT) scan. The system assigns a score from 1 to 4, with higher scores indicating more severe hemorrhage. The grades are as follows:

* Grade 1: SAH confined to the basal cisterns * Grade 2: SAH extending into the sylvian fissure and/or interhemispheric fissure * Grade 3: SAH diffusely involving the cerebral hemispheres and/or brainstem * Grade 4: SAH massive and diffuse

The Fisher grading system is more objective than the SGM Ashcroft grading system, and it takes into account the size of the hemorrhage. However, the system is not as reliable as the Hunt and Hess grading system, and it does not take into account the presence of neurological deficits.

The SGM Ashcroft grading system is a widely used tool for assessing the severity of subarachnoid hemorrhage. However, the system has a number of limitations, including its subjectivity, its failure to take into account the size of the aneurysm or the presence of intraventricular hemorrhage, and its simplicity. There are a number of alternative grading systems that have been proposed, but none of them is perfect. The choice of which grading system to use should be based on the individual patient and the specific clinical situation.

Controversies in Vascular Neurosurgery

by SGM Ashcroft

4 out of 5