Is it Time to Re-think the Zurich Guidelines?

799px-Zürich_-_Waidberg-Zürichsee_2

Zurich: Site of the 2012 Meeting which
developed the current Consensus Statement
on Concussion in Sport

Vienna, Prague, Zurich:  I’ve often wondered why the Consensus Statements on Concussion are made in central European cities.

The ‘International Consensus Conference on Concussion in Sport’ has taken place successively in Vienna (2001), Prague (2004), Zurich (2008) and again in Zurich (2012).  It’s looking like the timing is an Olympiad!  And as for venue, I suggest Budapest should start lobbying for 2016…..

But today we won’t be answering the ‘why’ of venue or timing regarding these conferences.  We’ll be looking at commentary on the output of the last Zurich meeting:  the so-called “Zurich guidelines,”  or the Consensus statement on concussion in sport:  the 4th International Conference on Concussion in Sport held in Zurich, November 2012.

An editorial in our new, March 2014 issue, is entitled:  Time to Re-think the Zurich Guidelines?  A Critique on the Consensus Statement on Concussion in Sport.  Written by Drs. Neil Craton and Oliver Leslie of Legacy Sport Medicine in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, the piece is a provocative deconstruction of the Zurich Guidelines.

800px-Bisons_vs_Calgary

Investors Group Field, where the team doc
Neil Craton cares for the CFL’s
Winnipeg Blue Bombers

The authors have contributed to CJSM in the past.  Last year, the pair wrote Concussion:  Purely a Brain Injury? and Dr. Craton has contributed several other pieces over the years.  The pair are also educators at the University of Manitoba Primary Care Sports Medicine Fellowship.  They are busy clinicians as well as writers and teachers, and Dr. Craton includes as his clients the players of the Winnipeg Blue Bombers of the Canadian Football League (CFL).

Concussion,  as defined by Zurich, is a subset of traumatic brain injuries. The formal definition, with which many of you will be familiar, is “…a brain injury and is defined as a complex pathophysiological process affecting the brain, induced by biomechanical forces.”

The editorial authors state that the Zurich guidelines, while providing high sensitivity,  lack sufficient specificity.  Consequently, they argue that Zurich opens up the possibility that a host of other pathologies (e.g. cervical strain, cervicogenic headaches, benign positional vertigo, etc.) can be construed as concussions.  And if understood that way, the potential ‘mis-diagnosis’ can lead to iatrogenic harm:  either by initiating a cycle of ineffective treatments, or causing undue worry among patients and families regarding a perceived brain injury.  They go so far as to write, “The inclusion criteria for a diagnosis of concussion as articulated by Zurich are absurd (my itals).” Read more of this post

%d bloggers like this: