| ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
|
| Year : 2014 | Volume
: 19
| Issue : 1 | Page : 19-23 |
|
|
Assessment and comparison of the memory profile in traumatic brain injury and subarachnoid hemorrhage patients
Ashima Nehra1, Avantika Sharma2, Swati Bajpai1, V Sreenivas3
1 Department of Clinical Neuropsychology, Neurosciences Center, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
2 Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, Punjab, India
3 Department of Biostatistics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
Correspondence Address:
Dr. Ashima Nehra
Room No. 718, Clinical Neuro Psychology, 7th Floor, Neurosciences Centre, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi - 110 029
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/0971-8990.143885
|
|
|
Background: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage (SAH) are the leading cause of death and disability in both developed and developing countries. They have significant cognitive and behavioral consequences, affecting the quality of life of both patients and their families. Aim: To compare the memory functioning of TBI and SAH and study the effect of demographics on the same through a retrospective study. Materials and Methods: A sample of 210 patients clinically diagnosed as TBI (N = 165; M = 145/F = 20) and SAH (N = 45; M = 35/F = 10) were using post graduate institute of memory scale (PGI-MS) which assesses 10 memory domains. Results: Odds Ratio (OR) was calculated by categorizing the scores as average and impaired on PGI-MS, the percentage of impaired cases of SAH were significantly less as compared to TBI (8.9% vs. 22.4%; OR = 0.34) Moreover, only two domains were found to have significant results, i.e. delayed recall and recognition. When the scores were adjusted for age, education and gender, memory impairment was found to be statistically significant in domains of remote memory (OR = O.10) recent memory (OR = 0.32), delayed recall (OR = 0.26), immediate memory (OR = 0.30), new learning ability (OR = 0.38), and recognition (OR = 0.17). Conclusion: A primary prevention (awareness program about risk factors) and tertiary prevention (holistic rehabilitation) would play a crucial role in improving the quality of life of both patients as well as the population at risk. |
|
|
|
| [FULL TEXT] [PDF]* |
|
 |
|
