Abstract
AIMS
The pathophysiology of traumatic brain injury (TBI) is incompletely understood and warrants further investigation with preclinical models that recapitulate aspects of the human condition. Therefore, our goal was to quantify the initial presentation of deficits in a closed-head rotational TBI model in male and female rats in return of righting reflex (RORR) and global neurological function including gross sound reflex scores as a measure of acoustic startle.
METHODS
A total of 116 rats (43 female) were included in this study that underwent TBI (n = 53), Sham (n = 42), or No Anesthesia control (n = 21) procedures to assess RORR, the Revised Neurobehavioral Severity Scale (NSS-R), or Auditory Brainstem Responses (ABR).
RESULTS
TBI rats had a trend towards a prolonged RORR, which was significantly increased in the TBI compared to control group when normalized to the duration of anesthesia. Gross neurological function was impaired in TBI rats, such that descriptively the largest component was due to acoustic startle deficits. These deficits were not explained by worse (higher) hearing thresholds in auditory brainstem responses, although TBI rats had increased thresholds at 16 and 20kHz, and a trend at 10kHz compared to Shams on post-TBI day 1 that was not different by day 8.
CONCLUSIONS
This model reproduces acoustic startle, and hearing impairment aspects of human TBI that influence quality of life. Additional studies are necessary to integrate variables from new clinical classification systems including blood-based and imaging biomarkers to aid in the translation to improve patient-oriented outcomes.
Keywords: TBI (traumatic brain injury); anesthesia; postoperative neurocognitive disorders, concussion; Revised Neurobehavioral Severity Scale (NSS-R); Auditory Brainstem Responses (ABR); experimental rat model
Introduction
Traumatic brain injury (TBI) care has greatly improved over time (1), but the pathophysiological mechanisms are incompletely understood, which has limited advances in patient-oriented outcomes in recent years (2). A better understanding of TBI would benefit military service members, civilians, and their families by improving prognostication of functional ability, mental health (3), cognition (4, 5), and quality of life (6), which is currently limited by the various recovery trajectories that occur despite similar initial clinical presentations (7–9). Animal models are necessary to recapitulate various aspects of TBI in humans (10), including on the more severe end of the injury spectrum (11). Modeling human TBI with animal surrogates using rotational injury devices has become more prevalent in recent years (10) due to the ability to more accurately correlate translatable biomechanical measures such as head rotational acceleration with resulting functional deficits as a result of diffuse brain injury rather than focal deficits (12, 13). Animal models that generate more severe diffuse injury are generally lacking since current models often have a focal injury component (11). Biofidelic modeling of distinct TBI severities is essential because secondary insults might depend on the pathoanatomical subtype. For example, we have recently shown that exposure to extracranial surgery/anesthesia shortly after TBI was associated with worse brain injury specific outcomes (14, 15). However, the effect was limited to patients with moderate to severe decreases in alertness or responsiveness as quantified with Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) or TBI that had a computed tomography (CT) scan demonstrating intracranial pathology (e.g. bleeding) despite a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 13–15 consistent with preserved responsiveness (14, 15). Therefore, we exposed rats to a previously reported Rotational Injury Device (RID) that elicits injury to diffuse brain regions (12, 16–19), but we targeted injuries with moderate acute deficits in alertness and responsiveness.
The objective of this study was to establish the initial presentation of a novel closed-head rotational TBI rat model targeting a prolonged loss of responsiveness and moderate neurological dysfunction. Brain mass scaling between animals and humans (20) was used to approximate the biomechanical parameters necessary to increase TBI severity from previously published results using this coronal plane RID model that generated subconcussive (21), classical concussion, or “mild” TBI including loss of consciousness determined as an extended time to responsiveness following anesthesia (12, 16–19). Our approach to quantifying the neurological dysfunction induced was to grossly identify the deficits with the largest effect sizes. This was accomplished by implementing the Revised Neurobehavioral Severity Scale (NSS-R), (22) which is a brain injury scoring system that has been validated in Blast (23), fluid percussion (24), controlled cortical impact (25), impact acceleration (26), and weight drop TBI models (27). The NSS-R was selected because it has been validated in many TBI models, has not been tested in a coronal plane rotational model to our knowledge, and it includes 10 different tests that quantify rodent behaviors using a gross scoring system assigned a score of zero (healthy), one (compromised), or two (absent). The hypothesis was that this rat TBI model would replicate aspects of human TBI, including loss of consciousness, weight loss, and neurologic dysfunction.
Methods
Animals
For these studies, 132 adult Sprague-Dawley rats, 82 males (300–325g) and 50 females (225–300g), were ordered at 9–14 weeks-old. Euthanasia endpoint criteria due to TBI included respiratory distress, severe neurologic signs such as seizure activity lasting more than 10 minutes continuously, severe ataxia, marked depression of activity, lack of movement or minimal response to tactile stimulation, or other signs consistent with a comatose state. Data collected from animals euthanized due to TBI-related endpoint criteria were included in the analysis if available, and unavailable data were treated as missing. There were 16 mortalities unrelated to TBI exposure. All animal procedures were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees prior to the initiation of experiments (Supplemental Materials).
Traumatic brain injury
The RID administered TBI (n = 53 rats) with the goal of inducing moderate acute functional neurological deficits without including debilitating injuries based on the euthanasia criteria above. Briefly, this model implements a closed head, coronal plane rotational injury without surgical interventions by securing the rat’s head into a helmet, which is rotated when an impactor rod strikes a moment arm attached to the helmet by a beam that is the center of rotation (12, 16) (Supplemental Materials). An accelerometer attached to the helmet was used to calculate TBI biomechanics, including the peak rotational acceleration magnitude, duration, and integral (area under the curve; AUC) of the rotational acceleration and deceleration curves (Figure 1). Recapitulation of human TBI biomechanics in rodent models requires brain mass scaling (20) so female rats were intentionally allowed to be an older age to better match weights such that TBI biomechanics were more similar. This approach minimized the influence of brain size but introduced age as a potential confound. In pilot studies, TBI administered targeting 600 krad/s/s impacts each up to 5 impacts often displayed subtle clinical findings or no phenotype (weight loss, piloerection, porphyrin staining, or gross neurologic changes). Therefore, the RID was targeted at 800 krad/s/s per impact, which is the maximum settings able to achieve consistent biomechanics with the current design. In a rat with an approximately 1.8 gram brain mass, an 800 krad/s/s impact is roughly equivalent to 9.6 krad/s/s rotational injury in a human, which is consistent with an Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) of 3 or an Ommaya Gennarelli Concussion Grade of 4 that would be predicted to generate loss of consciousness for an hour (20). The experiments were planned for 10 impacts. Since the euthanasia endpoint criteria were only observable after emergence from anesthesia, the number of impacts was decreased if there were TBI-induced vital sign derangements (heart rate less than 300 or greater than 600 bpm, blood pressure less than 90 or greater than 200 mmHg, or oxygen saturation less than 90%), which were anecdotally associated with reaching euthanasia criteria. All impacts were administered in as rapid succession as possible given the limitations of reloading the impactor rod and restarting the accelerometer recording. TBI biomechanical parameters were quantified using area under the curve (AUC) in order to assess for outcome differences due to small variations between the animals in this study, which would not be valid across a wider spectrum of injury severities. For example, it is well accepted that a TBI with a single impact of 8,000 krad/s/s is not equivalent to 10 impacts of 800 krad/s/s per impact, despite both having an equivalent cumulative peak magnitude.
Figure 1. Rotational Injury Device Biomechanics.

Representative tracing of rotational acceleration peak magnitude, duration, and area under the curve yielded from a rod ejected at the moment arm of the traumatic brain injury device.
Prior to the RID procedure, 5% isoflurane was administered in a chamber. A surgical plane of anesthesia, characterized by immobility in response to noxious stimuli, was established prior to endotracheal intubation. All TBIs were performed under the same anesthetic and therefore only a single return of righting reflex (RORR) was recorded. The time to the RORR was recorded as the time from turning off the volatile anesthetic to the transitioning from supine to prone. Raw RORR was divided by the duration of anesthesia and reported as the normalized RORR. We subsequently dichotomized the TBI group based on RORR times greater than (prolonged) or less than (normal) 2 SD greater than the mean of the Sham group values.
Control Groups
A Sham group (n = 42 rats) was subjected to the entire procedures, including general anesthesia, intubation, and insertion into the TBI helmet, without exposure to rotational acceleration of the head. A “No Anesthesia” group (n = 21 rats) did not experience any exposure to anesthesia throughout the course of the study, so animals were neither inserted into the RID helmet nor intubated. This is a critical control group that should be included in studies that implement isoflurane since anesthetic-induced neurotoxicity has been documented in rodents (28).
Neurological Function
The NSS-R was used to quantify deficits in global neurological function at baseline and on post-TBI days 1, 4, and 8 (22). The NSS-R is a series of specific, sensitive, and standardized observational tests that evaluate balance, motor coordination, and sensorimotor reflexes in rodents (Supplemental Materials) (22–25). The rater was blinded to the injury status of the rats.
Auditory Brainstem Responses
Recordings of Auditory Brainstem Responses (ABR) were performed in rats anesthetized with ketamine (75mg/kg; i.p.) and dexmedetomidine (0.5mg/kg; i.p.) since isoflurane is known to dampen evoked potentials. Dexmedetomidine was reversed after the procedure with atipamezole (0.5–2.5mg/kg; i.p.). Each rat was tested at 10, 16, and 20kHz, such that each frequency started at 90dB and decreased by 5dB until reaching the hearing threshold, or the minimum testable intensity of 20dB. Additional details available in Supplemental Materials. Tympanic membranes were not evaluated (29). The hearing threshold was determined as the lowest stimulus intensity at which wave IV was present and repeatable to visual discrimination by a single trained experimentalist (Figure 2) (30).
Figure 2. Auditory Brainstem Response Testing.

(A) Waveforms of electrophysiological recordings are shown for a representative animal demonstrating decreased amplitude of wave IV with sequential testing of 10kHz at lower decibel (dB) settings until complete loss at 25dB. The hearing threshold for this animal is therefore 30dB. (B) All animals were tested in 5dB increments and threshold was verified by reproducibility (with 3 recordings) as shown at increased amplification.
Statistical Analysis
Control animals (Sham, No Anesthesia) were compared using one-way ANOVAs for age, baseline weight, maximum weight loss, and NSS-R to assess if groups could be combined. Post-tests were performed using Tukey.
A Mixed Linear model (PROC MIXED) was used to assess differences in NSS-R between TBI and control groups accounting for sex, age at time of TBI, baseline weight, duration of anesthesia, normalized RORR, and time with animal as the random effect. A separate mixed model assessed NSS-R using all the same covariates above, but additionally included number of TBI impacts, cumulative TBI magnitude, cumulative TBI duration, and cumulative TBI AUC to determine if an individual biomechanical parameter predicted NSS-R deficits. Three separate General Linear models (PROC GLM) were used to assess differences loss between TBI and control groups in RORR, total NSS-R, and maximum weight. These models controlled for sex, age at time of TBI, baseline weight, number of TBI impacts, cumulative TBI magnitude, cumulative TBI duration, cumulative TBI AUC, duration of anesthesia, and time as fixed effects. The two separate models for total NSS-R and weight loss also included normalized RORR as fixed effects.
Total NSS-R scores are a summary score and therefore continuous data, but individual components of the NSS-R, such as sound reflex and balance scores are ordinal data. Consequently, these were analyzed using Conditional Logistic regression (PROC LOGISTIC) and Chi Square test, respectively. ABR thresholds were analyzed individually for each frequency tested using repeated measures ANOVA via a PROC GLM with the sexes collapsed due to the smaller sample size in those experiments.
A two-sided threshold of p<.05 was used for statistical significance. All analyses were conducted using SAS 9.4. Results are reported as mean+/−SD unless noted otherwise. Figures were generated with the ggplot2 package in R, Prism Graphpad 10.3.1, and Adobe Photoshop 2025.
Results
Subject Characteristics
On the day of TBI and control procedures, the 116 animals that remained in the study were 15+/−3.9 weeks old with 43 female (37%) and 73 male (63%) that were 296+/−42g. As expected, based on our methodological approach, there were sex differences in baseline weight and age, such that the females were lighter (p<0.0001) and older (p<0.0001) than the males (Table 1) according to one-way ANOVA. The control groups (Sham and No Anesthesia) were compared using one-way ANOVA and Chi Square tests to assess whether they were different from each other with the a priori plan to collapse groups if not different. No age differences were detected between the Sham or No Anesthesia groups in either females (18.3 +/− 3.9 weeks Sham; 18.8 +/− 4.0 No Anesthesia) or males (12.5 +/− 1.9 Sham; 14.2 +/− 2.2 No Anesthesia). No baseline weight differences were detected between the Sham or No Anesthesia groups in either females (18.3 +/− 3.9 Sham; 18.8 +/− 4.0 No Anesthesia) or males (12.5 +/− 1.9 Sham; 14.2 +/− 2.2 No Anesthesia). There were no differences between the control groups in maximum weight loss or NSS-R scores (Table 1) and therefore the control groups were combined for all subsequent analyses (Table 2).
Table 1.
Animal Characteristics.
| Variable | Female | Male | p-value | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||
| No Anesthesia | Sham | TBI | No Anesthesia | Sham | TBI | ||||||||||||||
| n | Mean | SD | n | Mean | SD | n | Mean | SD | n | Mean | SD | n | Mean | SD | n | Mean | SD | ||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||
| Age at time of TBI (weeks) | 9 | 18.8 | 4.0 | 16 | 18.3 | 3.9 | 18 | 18.3 | 3.9 | 12 | 9.5* | 2.2 | 26 | 12.5* | 1.9 | 35 | 13.0* | 2.2 | <0.0001 |
| Baseline Weight (grams) | 9 | 250 | 15 | 12 | 247 | 25 | 17 | 253 | 25 | 9 | 320# | 11 | 12 | 325# | 15 | 33 | 330# | 15 | <0.0001 |
| Maximum Weight Loss (grams) | 9 | −3 | 4 | 15 | −7 | 6 | 9 | −16 | 9 | 12 | −1 | 7 | 16 | −5 | 10 | 23 | −29 | 20 | - |
| Total NSS-R | |||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
| Baseline | 5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 10 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 10 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 6 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 21 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 29 | 0.4 | 0.8 | - |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
| Day 1 | 5 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 10 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 10 | 1.9 | 3.3 | 6 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 22 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 28 | 3.8 | 4.0 | - |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
| Day 4 | 5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 5 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 5 | 0.8 | 1.8 | 2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 12 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 12 | 3.0 | 3.3 | - |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
| Day 8 | 1 | 0.0 | - | 6 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 4 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 1 | 1.0 | - | 11 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 9 | 1.0 | 1.3 | - |
Main effect of sex reported from one-way ANOVA with post-tests that demonstrated that females were *significantly older than males, and #weighed more than males in the same treatment group. There were no differences between the No Anesthesia and Sham groups according to one-way ANOVA so those groups were combined into a single Control group for all subsequent analyses. Cells with a single dash denote analyses that were not performed with all groups separated since they were outcomes of interest.
Table 2.
Descriptive data for TBI and control procedures.
| Variable | Female | Male | p-value | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||||||||
| Control | TBI | Control | TBI | ||||||||||
| n | Mean | SD | n | Mean | SD | n | Mean | SD | n | Mean | SD | ||
|
| |||||||||||||
| Duration of Anesthesia (min) | 10 | 49 | 7.7 | 12 | 64 | 24 | 19 | 43 | 30 | 23 | 62 | 12 | 0.01 1 |
| RORR (min) | 10 | 7 | 2.5 | 12 | 20 | 28 | 19 | 7 | 4 | 23 | 15 | 11 | 0.067 2 |
| Normalized RORR (min/min of Anesthesia) | 10 | 0.14 | 0.05 | 12 | 0.34 | 0.51 | 19 | 0.13 | 0.10 | 23 | 0.27 | 0.23 | 0.03 3 |
| Maximum Weight Change (grams) | 24 | −6 | 5 | 9 | −16 | 9 | 28 | −3 | 9 | 23 | −29 | 20 | 0.14 4 |
Compared to the control group, the traumatic brain injury (TBI) group had a larger duration of anesthesia according to one-way ANOVA
a trend towards a longer time to return of righting reflex (RORR) that did not reach statistical significance according to a general linear model (PROC GLM)
a larger (longer) normalized RORR according to a separate PROC GLM
and a trend toward a greater maximum weight loss according to a separate PROC GLM.
No sex differences were detected in any analyses.
TBI Biomechanics, Mortality, and Critical Injury Rates
The cumulative peak rotational acceleration magnitude from TBI was 9215 +/− 2650 krad/s2, which corresponded to an AUC of 8290 +/− 2290 krad/s and a cumulative acceleration duration of 50.3 +/− 13.5ms over 8.7 +/− 1.6 injuries (Table 3). A total of 15 (13%) rats met euthanasia criteria (10 rats on the day of TBI; 5 rats on post-TBI day 1 or later).
Table 3.
Biomechanical parameters.
| Variable | Female TBI (n = 18) | Male TBI (n = 35) | p-value | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Coefficient of Variation | Mean | SD | Coefficient of Variation | ||
|
| |||||||
| Number of Impacts | 8.6 | 1.5 | 17 | 8.8 | 1.7 | 19 | 0.57 |
| Cumulative Magnitude of Impacts (krad/s/s) | 8890 | 2760 | 31 | 9380 | 2610 | 28 | 0.53 |
| Cumulative Duration (ms) | 51 | 14 | 27 | 49 | 13 | 27 | 0.55 |
| Cumulative AUC (krad/s) | 7650 | 1990 | 26 | 8610 | 2390 | 28 | 0.15 |
TBI administration was not different between male and female Sprague Dawley rats according to one-way ANOVA.
Return of Righting Reflex
A General Linear model (PROC GLM) was used to assess RORR that controlled for TBI group, sex, age at time of TBI, baseline weight, number of TBI impacts, cumulative TBI magnitude, cumulative TBI duration, cumulative TBI AUC, and duration of anesthesia. There was a trend towards a difference between the TBI (17 +/− 18 min) and control groups (7 +/− 4 min) that did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.067; Table 2). There was no evidence of differences based on sex (p = 0.61), age (p = 0.97), weight (p = 0.23), or TBI parameters (number of TBIs, p = 0.61; cumulative TBI magnitude, p = 0.25; cumulative TBI duration, p = 0.18; cumulative TBI AUC, p = 0.29). A separate PROC GLM model was generated for RORR normalized to the duration of anesthesia, which showed the TBI group had an increased (longer) normalized RORR (0.29 +/− 0.34; p = 0.03) compared to the control group (0.13 +/− 0.086). There were no differences in sex (p = 0.65), age (p = 0.97), weight (p = 0.29), or TBI parameters (number of TBIs, p = 0.72; cumulative TBI magnitude, p = 0.24; cumulative TBI duration, p = 0.20; cumulative TBI AUC, p = 0.26). RORR data had a bimodal distribution and so was dichotomized based on normalized RORR times greater than (prolonged) or less than (normal) 2 SD greater than the mean of the Sham group values (Figure 3). In the TBI group, 12 (22.6%) had a prolonged RORR, of whom there were 9 (25.7%) male and 3 (16.7%) female. No animal in the sham group had a prolonged RORR.
Figure 3. Return of Righting Reflex.

The time to Return of Righting Reflex (RORR) was quantified in rats undergoing traumatic brain injury (TBI) and Sham procedures. The TBI group had a trend toward a longer RORR compared to Shams according to the PROC GLM (p = 0.067). Individual data points are presented with the median and interquartile range. Rats dichotomized into the prolonged RORR subgroup (defined as greater than 2 SD above the mean Sham group value) are illustrated by squares. A separate PROC GLM model was generated for RORR normalized to the duration of anesthesia, (data not shown; further details in Results; p = 0.03).
Body Weight Change
Weights were measured up to 5 days per week after TBI and the greatest change from baseline weight was recorded, regardless of the day on which it was observed. Maximum weight change differed by one-way ANOVA across sex-and-intervention (p < 0.0001), with the male TBI group losing more than female controls and with TBI-exposed animals of both sexes losing more than male controls. These effects of TBI did not hold after controlling for other factors using a GLM model, which found that maximum weight change was not explained by TBI exposure (p = 0.14) after accounting for sex (p = 0.59), age (p = 0.76), baseline weight (p = 0.17), TBI parameters (number of TBIs, p = 0.60; cumulative TBI magnitude, p = 0.53; cumulative TBI duration, p = 0.80; cumulative TBI AUC, p = 0.45), duration of anesthesia (p = 0.52), and normalized RORR (p = 0.48; Table 2). We also used a GLM to assess the total NSS-R in relationship to the maximum weight loss controlling for group, sex, age, baseline weight, TBI parameters, normalized RORR, and time. There was a relationship between maximum weight change and the total NSS-R score (p = 0.004), such that for every 10 grams of body weight loss there is an association with a 1.3 greater (more deficits) total NSS-R, which is the expected direction of change.
Neurological Function
Total NSS-R scores were increased (more deficits) in the TBI group compared to Controls according to a mixed model that found a significant effect (p < 0.0001) of day by group (TBI versus controls), while controlling for sex (p = 0.86), age (p = 0.75), and baseline weight (p = 0.50) (Figure 4A). The effect was limited to the TBI group on post-TBI day 1 (p < 0.01). All other groups and times were not different from controls at baseline (p > 0.05). The prolonged RORR group had a 1.7-point increase in total NSS-R score (more deficits) compared to subjects with a normal RORR following TBI (p = 0.015). In a separate mixed model, TBI parameters were included as covariates to determine their contribution to total NSS-R scores. This model also found a significant effect (p < 0.0001) of day by group (TBI versus controls), but no individual group or day was significant (p > 0.05). In this model, for every 1000 krad/s/s increase in cumulative TBI peak magnitude there was a 0.8-point increase in total NSS-R score (p < 0.01). The model also found a significant, but paradoxical effect of cumulative TBI AUC such that for every 1000 krad/s decrease there was a 0.5-point increase in total NSS-R score (p < 0.05). Similar to the initial model, this model also found no effect of sex (p = 0.86), age (p = 0.75), and baseline weight (p = 0.50).
Figure 4. Neurological Function.



Rats were assessed for (A) global neurological function using the total Revised Neurobehavioral Severity Scale (NSS-R), (B) acoustic startle using the sound reflex, and (C) vestibular system using balance which were tested at baseline, post-TBI day 1, 4, and 8 in the TBI, Sham, or No Anesthesia groups (not shown; no difference from Sham). Sound reflex scores quantify acoustic startle behaviors evoked by a 60–70dB hand clap that is approximately 10kHz. Balance scores assessed the ability to balance and walk on a beam. Columns represent percent in each group with a given score. Lower scores are better. Statistical significance in one-way ANOVA denoted for differences in the change from baseline between groups; **p<0.01; ***p<0.0001.
A major determinant of the total NSS-R scores was the sound reflex, which are ordinal data that violate the assumptions of the chi square test and therefore are presented descriptively. Control rats scored perfectly at all time points except one control rat at post-TBI day 4 only (4.2%). The TBI group had non-zero sound reflex scores (reflecting any non-normal behavior) (Figure 4B) on post-TBI day 1 (score 1: 8.4%; score 2: 45.4%), day 4 (score 1: 5.7%; score 2: 11.4%) and day 8 (score 1: 5.56%; score 2: 5.7%).
Balance scores were the next largest contribution to the total NSS-R scores. The TBI group had increased balance scores (more deficits) (Figure 4C) on post-TBI day 1 (score 1: 22.7%; score 2: 25.56%), with a return towards baseline on day 4 (score 1: 14.3%; score 2: 8.57%) and day 8 (score 1: 8.57%; score 2: 2.86%).
Auditory Brainstem Responses
A subset of male and female rats in the TBI (n=15) and Sham groups (n=16) underwent ABR testing at 10, 16, and 20 kHz on post-TBI day 1 and day 8 (Table 4). Within each frequency, a repeated measures ANOVA (PROC GLM) was performed, which assessed the effects of group (TBI intervention with sex collapsed since there were no differences), time, and the interaction of group with time (Figure 5). At 10 kHz, there was a trend towards significant increase in the hearing threshold at post-TBI day 1 due to effects of TBI (p = 0.056) and time (p = 0.083) with a significant interaction (p = 0.027). At 16 kHz, there was a hearing threshold shift such that TBI rats had a higher threshold (more deficits) (p < 0.05) with a significant effect of time (p < 0.05) and a significant interaction (p < 0.01). At 20 kHz, there was a significant increase in ABR thresholds due to TBI (p < 0.001) and time (p < 0.05) with a significant interaction (p < 0.01). There were not differences between TBI and sham groups for any frequency at post-TBI day 8.
Table 4.
Auditory Brainstem Responses.
| Female Control | Female TBI | Male Control | Male TBI | p-value | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | Mean | SD | n | Mean | SD | n | Mean | SD | n | Mean | SD | TBI | Time | Interaction | |
| 10kHz | |||||||||||||||
| Day 1 | 8 | 26 | 6 | 7 | 39 | 7 | 8 | 32 | 4 | 8 | 37 | 7 | 0.056 | 0.083 | 0.027 |
| Day 8 | 6 | 30 | 9 | 4 | 28 | 6 | 8 | 30 | 4 | 7 | 34 | 6 | |||
| 16kHz | |||||||||||||||
| Day 1 | 8 | 28 | 7 | 7 | 36 | 8 | 8 | 26 | 4 | 8 | 34 | 6 | 0.032 | 0.027 | 0.006 |
| Day 8 | 6 | 28 | 5 | 4 | 26 | 5 | 8 | 27 | 4 | 7 | 28 | 4 | |||
| 20kHz | |||||||||||||||
| Day 1 | 8 | 28 | 4 | 7 | 40 | 6 | 8 | 27 | 3 | 8 | 35 | 7 | 0.0008 | 0.017 | 0.009 |
| Day 8 | 6 | 28 | 5 | 4 | 28 | 6 | 8 | 28 | 3 | 7 | 32 | 4 | |||
Hearing thresholds were not different between the sexes as shown and therefore collapsed in Figure 5 for comparisons between the TBI and control groups using a repeated measures ANOVA (PROC GLM). Significant values p<0.05 denoted in bold.
Figure 5. Auditory Brainstem Responses.

Assessments for hearing thresholds using auditory brainstem responses quantified with electrophysiological responses to acoustic stimuli at (A) post-TBI day 1 and (B) day 8. Auditory brainstem responses were tested in rats anesthetized using ketamine and dexmedetomidine. Individual data points are presented with the median, a box plot for the interquartile range, and error bars for the 95% confidence interval. Statistical significance denoted by **p<0.01; ***p<0.0001 according to one-way ANOVA.
Discussion
This study demonstrated that the RID model, at the biomechanical parameters targeted, is characterized by a delayed return of righting reflex, weight loss, and global neurologic dysfunction that returns to baseline over a week. This study did not convincingly demonstrate sex differences. The deficits in neurologic function were most prominent in the sound reflex (acoustic startle responses) and balance (vestibular function), which in humans have been associated with impaired emotional responsivity (31, 32) and anxiety (33), respectively. Therefore, additional studies are urgently needed to understand the pathophysiological mechanisms of TBI so that therapeutic interventions can be developed to improve patient-oriented outcomes.
Loss of consciousness after TBI is associated with worse outcomes and therefore is a prognostic feature in humans (34–36). RORR is a surrogate for loss of consciousness when anesthesia is necessary in a TBI model and has been used to equate injury severity between different TBI mechanisms (19). Delayed RORR is also associated with worse outcomes (36), which would be expected in animal TBI models and was observed in the data presented here (Figure 3, 4, and GLM). If RORR is to be utilized as a translational measurement given that loss of consciousness has prognostic value in humans, then it is critically important to avoid confounds related to the type and duration of anesthesia. We advocate for a consensus regarding standardization of the methodological and statistical approach, which should include normalization of RORR to the duration of anesthesia and inclusion of anesthesia duration as a covariate in statistical analyses. In our studies, the normalized RORR, but not the raw RORR time, was significantly different between the TBI compared to Sham group. The duration of anesthesia was not associated with either the raw or normalized RORR. This raises the intriguing hypothesis that anesthetic depth requirements are altered after TBI, which warrants further investigation since, to our knowledge, no studies have tested this in humans (Supplemental Materials) (28, 37–78).
Acoustic startle responses are impaired after TBI in humans (31, 32), rats (79), and mice (80) making it an invaluable translational research method (31, 32, 79, 80). After TBI, people have a decrease in startle potentiation to unpleasant images (31, 32, 81). These impairments are important because acoustic startle responses are associated with emotional deficits after TBI that may contribute to poor relationships due to lack of social self-awareness, empathy, adaptability, and the inability to recognize social cues and emotional expression (82, 83). These deficits can contribute to emotional detachment, callousness, (84) and social isolation (85), but treatment might be possible since after TBI, patients have been successfully trained to recognize emotion via facial affect (86) and supported with cognitive-behavioral group therapy that addresses emotional impairments impeding social competence (87).
In this study, the RID model caused deficits in acoustic startle responses, such that the behaviors were blunted. This is opposite to the excessive acoustic startle responses that are quantified in fear behavioral phenotypes and are commonly assessed in the diagnosis of PTSD, which has led others to hypothesize that blunted acoustic startle responses might mask aspects of exaggerated responses and interfere with the diagnosis of PTSD after TBI (88). However, startle responses could be confounded by hearing loss, which has rarely been controlled for except in some high-quality audiometry studies in military service Veterans (89). In preclinical studies, auditory threshold assessment is generally lacking. Others have verified that the startle deficit quantified by the NSS-R sound reflex corresponds to an acoustic startle response (24), but auditory threshold data to rule out hearing impairment was not performed. A strength of our study is the confirmation that startle deficits cannot be attributed to hearing impairments alone. Although there were statistically significant increases in the ABR thresholds, the increase from 25–30dB to 35–40dB would not likely be sufficient to impair the acoustic startle behaviors quantified in the NSS-R in response to a 60–70dB stimulus (Figure 4B). This is not to dismiss auditory processing or hearing impairments after TBI as being irrelevant. In fact, hearing deficits after TBI has been known about for decades (90), is an important health care issue for athletes (91) and Veterans (92) and can be due to peripheral or central defects in the hearing system. While highly prevalent and well-known in the setting of temporal bone fracture, hearing impairment can also occur in over 50% of patients after TBI without a bony fracture (93). Our findings demonstrate 5–15dB temporary threshold shifts, which is remarkably similar to the 10–15dB hearing loss seen in some human TBI studies (93). This supports this TBI model as a potential tool for studying TBI-related hearing loss in humans.
Limitations
This study has several limitations in addition to other well-known limitations of preclinical TBI models (Supplemental Materials) (94–96). First, in these studies, quantification of the acoustic startle response and balance was part of the NSS-R battery of functional and cognitive testing, which included a sound reflex test that is scored on a coarse 3-point scale (97). Future studies would benefit from higher sensitivity analyses, such as acoustic startle responses / pre-pulse inhibition and rotarod. Second, the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms responsible for the deficits in this study require further interrogation. For example, we cannot attribute the startle reflex deficits to a precise pathophysiological mechanism. Specific brain regions were not tested for causality and the lack of imaging (in vivo or histological) also limits the ability to consider associations with candidate sites. Therefore, further studies are warranted to specifically test the contributions of limbic and central autonomic networks on these processes, such as the prefrontal cortex and amygdala. Our study did not evaluate the temporal bones, tympanic membranes, or other aspects of the hearing conduction system. However, damage to these structures is an unlikely explanation since prior studies using this TBI rat model did not identify any changes suggestive of temporal bone fractures (17, 98, 99) and the ABR returned to baseline within 1 week, which would be too fast for structural damage. Furthermore, monitoring wave IV of ABR verifies that the signal from the acoustic stimuli is reaching the lateral lemniscus or inferior colliculus (100, 101). This does not exclude the possibility that there was irritation to the Labyrinthine artery that contributed to this mild temporary threshold shift, which could also have contributed to the balance beam issues identified. Although a less severe injury using this same TBI model has demonstrated MRI changes in both the frontal cortex and amygdala (17), which further supports pursuit of these as candidate regions for the effects seen here.
Conclusions
Improving outcomes after TBI is critically important to military service members, Veterans, and civilian patients that suffer from decreased function, anxiety (3), and dementia (4, 102). This rat TBI model characterized by loss of consciousness and body weight highlights deficits in global neurologic function, including acoustic startle responses that have been demonstrated after TBI in humans and rodents, and supports the need for appropriate quantification of emotional responses that impact quality of life. A better understanding of the complex pathophysiological mechanisms of brain injury patients that contribute to these issues is essential to optimize rehabilitation and develop new treatments.
Supplementary Material
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank Dave Schwabe for his contributions to the setup, maintenance, trouble shooting, and repair of equipment necessary to monitor the animals and administer brain injuries.
Funding
This work was supported in part by: the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Biomedical Laboratory Research and Development Service Career Development Award #IK2 BX005600 (C. J. Roberts) and rodent assay training, equipment, and space were provided by the Neuroscience Research Center’s Rodent Behavior Core, which is funded by the Research and Education Initiative Fund, a component of the Advancing a Healthier Wisconsin Endowment at the Medical College of Wisconsin. The contents do not represent the views of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the United States Government, the Medical College of Wisconsin, or the Advancing a Healthier Wisconsin Endowment.
Role of the Funder/Sponsor:
None of the funding organizations / sponsors were involved in the design and conduct of this study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; or decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Abbreviations:
- TBI
Traumatic brain injury
- RID
rotational injury device
- NSS-R
Revised Neurobehavioral Severity Scale
- ABR
Auditory Brainstem Responses
Footnotes
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
- 1.Stein SC, Georgoff P, Meghan S, Mizra K, Sonnad SS. 150 years of treating severe traumatic brain injury: a systematic review of progress in mortality. J Neurotrauma. 2010;27(7):1343–53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Shaik NF, Law CA, Elser H, Schneider ALC. Trends in Traumatic Brain Injury Mortality in the US. JAMA Neurology. 2024;81(2):194–5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Walker LE, Watrous J, Poltavskiy E, Howard JT, Janak JC, Pettey WBP, et al. Longitudinal mental health outcomes of combat-injured service members. Brain Behav. 2021;11(5):e02088. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Barnes DE, Byers AL, Gardner RC, Seal KH, Boscardin WJ, Yaffe K. Association of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury With and Without Loss of Consciousness With Dementia in US Military Veterans. JAMA Neurology. 2018;75(9):1055–61. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Cox AW, Fernandes MA. Long-term cognitive and affective consequences of mild traumatic brain injury: comparison with older adults. Brain Inj. 2024;38(13):1133–46. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Alashram AR. Effects of aerobic exercise on concussion-related symptoms: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Brain Inj. 2025:1–10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.McCrea MA, Giacino JT, Barber J, Temkin NR, Nelson LD, Levin HS, et al. Functional Outcomes Over the First Year After Moderate to Severe Traumatic Brain Injury in the Prospective, Longitudinal TRACK-TBI Study. JAMA Neurology. 2021;78(8):982–92. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Machamer J, Temkin N, Dikmen S, Nelson LD, Barber J, Hwang P, et al. Symptom Frequency and Persistence in the First Year after Traumatic Brain Injury: A TRACK-TBI Study. J Neurotrauma. 2022;39(5–6):358–70. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Eagle SR, Nwachuku E, Deng H, Okonkwo DO, Elmer J, Pease M. Applying the Sliding Scale Approach to Quantifying Functional Outcomes Up to Two Years After Severe Traumatic Brain Injury. Journal of Neurotrauma. 2023;41(11–12):1417–24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Bodnar CN, Roberts KN, Higgins EK, Bachstetter AD. A Systematic Review of Closed Head Injury Models of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury in Mice and Rats. J Neurotrauma. 2019;36(11):1683–706. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Zhao Q, Zhang J, Li H, Li H, Xie F. Models of traumatic brain injury-highlights and drawbacks. Front Neurol. 2023;14:1151660. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Fijalkowski RJ, Stemper BD, Pintar FA, Yoganandan N, Crowe MJ, Gennarelli TA. New rat model for diffuse brain injury using coronal plane angular acceleration. J Neurotrauma. 2007;24(8):1387–98. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Blumbergs PC, Jones NR, North JB. Diffuse axonal injury in head trauma. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1989;52(7):838–41. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Roberts CJ, Barber J, Temkin NR, Dong A, Robertson CS, Valadka AB, et al. Clinical Outcomes After Traumatic Brain Injury and Exposure to Extracranial Surgery: A TRACK-TBI Study. JAMA Surg. 2024;159(3):248–59. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Roberts CJ, Maiga AW, Barber J, Temkin NR, Vala R, Patel MB, et al. One-Year Outcomes After Traumatic Brain Injury and Early Extracranial Surgery in the TRACK-TBI Study. JAMA Netw Open. 2025;8(10):e2537271. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Fijalkowski RJ, Stemper BD, Pintar FA, Yoganandan N, Gennarelli TA. Biomechanical correlates of mild diffuse brain injury in the rat. Biomed Sci Instrum. 2007;43:18–23. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Stemper BD, Shah AS, Pintar FA, McCrea M, Kurpad SN, Glavaski-Joksimovic A, et al. Head rotational acceleration characteristics influence behavioral and diffusion tensor imaging outcomes following concussion. Ann Biomed Eng. 2015;43(5):1071–88. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Stemper BD, Shah AS, Chiariello R, Olsen CM, Budde MD, Glavaski-Joksimovic A, et al. Prediction of Post-Concussive Behavioral Changes in a Rodent Model Based on Head Rotational Acceleration Characteristics. Annals of Biomedical Engineering. 2016;44(11):3252–65. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Stemper BD, Shah AS, Budde MD, Olsen CM, Glavaski-Joksimovic A, Kurpad SN, et al. Behavioral Outcomes Differ between Rotational Acceleration and Blast Mechanisms of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury. Frontiers in Neurology. 2016;7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Gennarelli TA, Pintar FA, Yoganandan N. Biomechanical Tolerances for Diffuse Brain Injury and a Hypothesis for Genotypic Variability in Response to Trauma . Annual proceedings Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine 2003:624–8. [Google Scholar]
- 21.Stemper BD, Shah A, Chiariello R, McCarthy C, Jessen K, Sarka B, et al. A Preclinical Rodent Model for Repetitive Subconcussive Head Impact Exposure in Contact Sport Athletes. Front Behav Neurosci. 2022;16:805124. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Yarnell AM, Barry ES, Mountney A, Shear D, Tortella F, Grunberg NE. The Revised Neurobehavioral Severity Scale (NSS-R) for Rodents. Curr Protoc Neurosci. 2016;75:9.52.1–9..16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Yarnell AM, Shaughness MC, Barry ES, Ahlers ST, McCarron RM, Grunberg NE. Blast traumatic brain injury in the rat using a blast overpressure model. Curr Protoc Neurosci. 2013;Chapter 9:Unit 9.41. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Xing G, Barry ES, Benford B, Grunberg NE, Li H, Watson WD, et al. Impact of repeated stress on traumatic brain injury-induced mitochondrial electron transport chain expression and behavioral responses in rats. Front Neurol. 2013;4:196. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Turtzo LC, Budde MD, Gold EM, Lewis BK, Janes L, Yarnell A, et al. The evolution of traumatic brain injury in a rat focal contusion model. NMR Biomed. 2013;26(4):468–79. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Moraga-Amaro R, Moreno O, Llop J, Bankstahl M, Bankstahl JP. Short- and long-term changes in neurological, behavioural, and blood biomarkers following repeated mild traumatic brain injury in rats-potential biological sex-dependent effects. Front Mol Neurosci. 2025;18:1488261. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Lau JS, Lust CAC, Lecques JD, Hillyer LM, Mountjoy M, Kang JX, et al. n-3 PUFA ameliorate functional outcomes following repetitive mTBI in the fat-1 mouse model. Front Nutr. 2024;11:1410884. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Jevtovic-Todorovic V, Hartman RE, Izumi Y, Benshoff ND, Dikranian K, Zorumski CF, et al. Early exposure to common anesthetic agents causes widespread neurodegeneration in the developing rat brain and persistent learning deficits. J Neurosci. 2003;23(3):876–82. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Domarecka E, Kalcioglu MT, Mutlu A, Özgür A, Smit J, Olze H, et al. Reporting Data on Auditory Brainstem Responses (ABR) in Rats: Recommendations Based on Review of Experimental Protocols and Literature. Brain Sci. 2021;11(12). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Beltrame AK, Dahms NM, Runge CL. Auditory brainstem responses in aging dark agouti rats. Biosci Rep. 2021;41(2). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Saunders JC, McDonald S, Richardson R. Loss of emotional experience after traumatic brain injury: findings with the startle probe procedure. Neuropsychology. 2006;20(2):224–31. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Williams C, Wood RL. Affective modulation of the startle reflex following traumatic brain injury. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2012;34(9):948–61. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Womble MN, Durfee KJ, Jennings S, Fedor S, Zynda AJ, Schatz P, et al. The Co-Occurrence of Vestibular/Ocular Motor Provocation and State Anxiety in Adolescents and Young Adults with Concussion. Journal of Neurotrauma. 2024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Chanti-Ketterl M, Pieper CF, Yaffe K, Plassman BL. Associations Between Traumatic Brain Injury and Cognitive Decline Among Older Male Veterans: A Twin Study. Neurology. 2023;101(18):e1761–e70. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Waters AB, Bottari SA, Jones LC, Lamb DG, Lewis GF, Williamson JB. Regional associations of white matter integrity and neurological, post-traumatic stress disorder and autonomic symptoms in Veterans with and without history of loss of consciousness in mild TBI. Front Neuroimaging. 2023;2:1265001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Berman R, Spencer H, Boese M, Kim S, Radford K, Choi K. Loss of Consciousness and Righting Reflex Following Traumatic Brain Injury: Predictors of Post-Injury Symptom Development (A Narrative Review). Brain Sci. 2023;13(5). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Choo YH, Seo Y, Oh HJ. Deep Sedation in Traumatic Brain Injury Patients . Korean J Neurotrauma. 2023;19(2):185–94. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Deogaonkar A, Gupta R, DeGeorgia M, Sabharwal V, Gopakumaran B, Schubert A, et al. Bispectral Index monitoring correlates with sedation scales in brain-injured patients. Crit Care Med. 2004;32(12):2403–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Jung JY, Cho CB, Min BM. Bispectral index monitoring correlates with the level of consciousness in brain injured patients. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2013;64(3):246–50. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Kaye C, Rhodes J, Austin P, Casey M, Gould R, Sira J, et al. Assessment of depth of sedation using Bispectral Index™ monitoring in patients with severe traumatic brain injury in UK intensive care units. BJA Open. 2024;10:100287. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Oddo M, Crippa IA, Mehta S, Menon D, Payen JF, Taccone FS, et al. Optimizing sedation in patients with acute brain injury. Crit Care. 2016;20(1):128. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Schmitt S, Dichter MA. Electrophysiologic recordings in traumatic brain injury. Handb Clin Neurol. 2015;127:319–39. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Ogilvie MP, Pereira BM, Ryan ML, Gomez-Rodriguez JC, Pierre EJ, Livingstone AS, et al. Bispectral index to monitor propofol sedation in trauma patients. J Trauma. 2011;71(5):1415–21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Froese L, Dian J, Gomez A, Batson C, Sainbhi AS, Zeiler FA. Association Between Processed Electroencephalogram-Based Objectively Measured Depth of Sedation and Cerebrovascular Response: A Systematic Scoping Overview of the Human and Animal Literature. Front Neurol. 2021;12:692207. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Senapathi TGA, Wiryana M, Aribawa I, Ryalino C. Bispectral index value correlates with Glasgow Coma Scale in traumatic brain injury patients. Open Access Emerg Med. 2017;9:43–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Barr J, Fraser GL, Puntillo K, Ely EW, Gélinas C, Dasta JF, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the management of pain, agitation, and delirium in adult patients in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med. 2013;41(1):263–306. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Strøm T, Martinussen T, Toft P. A protocol of no sedation for critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2010;375(9713):475–80. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Kress JP, Pohlman AS, O'Connor MF, Hall JB. Daily interruption of sedative infusions in critically ill patients undergoing mechanical ventilation. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(20):1471–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Dolmans RGF, Barber J, Foreman B, Temkin NR, Okonkwo DO, Robertson CS, et al. Sedation Intensity in Patients with Moderate to Severe Traumatic Brain Injury in the Intensive Care Unit: A TRACK-TBI Cohort Study. Neurocrit Care. 2024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Roberts DJ, Hall RI, Kramer AH, Robertson HL, Gallagher CN, Zygun DA. Sedation for critically ill adults with severe traumatic brain injury: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Crit Care Med. 2011;39(12):2743–51. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Jeffcote T, Weir T, Anstey J, McNamara R, Bellomo R, Udy A. The Impact of Sedative Choice on Intracranial and Systemic Physiology in Moderate to Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: A Scoping Review. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 2023;35(3):265–73. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Andreasen TH, Madsen FA, Barbateskovic M, Lindschou J, Gluud C, Møller K. Ketamine for Critically Ill Patients with Severe Acute Brain Injury: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials . Neurocrit Care. 2024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Liu SY, Kelly-Hedrick M, Komisarow J, Hatfield J, Ohnuma T, Treggiari MM, et al. Association of Early Dexmedetomidine Utilization With Clinical Outcomes After Moderate-Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Anesth Analg. 2024;139(2):366–74. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Liu SY, Kelly-Hedrick M, Temkin N, Barber J, Komisarow J, Hatfield J, et al. Association of Early Dexmedetomidine Utilization With Clinical and Functional Outcomes Following Moderate-Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: A Transforming Clinical Research and Knowledge in Traumatic Brain Injury Study. Crit Care Med. 2024;52(4):607–17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Luh C, Gierth K, Timaru-Kast R, Engelhard K, Werner C, Thal SC. Influence of a brief episode of anesthesia during the induction of experimental brain trauma on secondary brain damage and inflammation. PLoS One. 2011;6(5):e19948. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.He H, Liu W, Zhou Y, Liu Y, Weng P, Li Y, et al. Sevoflurane post-conditioning attenuates traumatic brain injury-induced neuronal apoptosis by promoting autophagy via the PI3K/AKT signaling pathway. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2018;12:629–38. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Wang Z, Li J, Wang A, Wang Z, Wang J, Yuan J, et al. Sevoflurane Inhibits Traumatic Brain Injury-Induced Neuron Apoptosis via EZH2-Downregulated KLF4/p38 Axis. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2021;9:658720. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Williams-Russo P, Sharrock NE, Mattis S, Szatrowski TP, Charlson ME. Cognitive effects after epidural vs general anesthesia in older adults. A randomized trial. Jama. 1995;274(1):44–50. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Wu CL, Hsu W, Richman JM, Raja SN. Postoperative cognitive function as an outcome of regional anesthesia and analgesia. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2004;29(3):257–68. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Liu Y, Pan N, Ma Y, Zhang S, Guo W, Li H, et al. Inhaled sevoflurane may promote progression of amnestic mild cognitive impairment: a prospective, randomized parallel-group study. Am J Med Sci. 2013;345(5):355–60. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Hughes CG, Patel MB, Jackson JC, Girard TD, Geevarghese SK, Norman BC, et al. Surgery and Anesthesia Exposure Is Not a Risk Factor for Cognitive Impairment After Major Noncardiac Surgery and Critical Illness. Ann Surg. 2017;265(6):1126–33. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62.Whitlock EL, Diaz-Ramirez LG, Smith AK, Boscardin WJ, Covinsky KE, Avidan MS, et al. Association of Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting vs Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Memory Decline in Older Adults Undergoing Coronary Revascularization. JAMA. 2021;325(19):1955–64. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63.Neuman MD, Feng R, Carson JL, Gaskins LJ, Dillane D, Sessler DI, et al. Spinal Anesthesia or General Anesthesia for Hip Surgery in Older Adults. New England Journal of Medicine. 2021;385(22):2025–35. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64.Li T, Li J, Yuan L, Wu J, Jiang C, Daniels J, et al. Effect of Regional vs General Anesthesia on Incidence of Postoperative Delirium in Older Patients Undergoing Hip Fracture Surgery. JAMA. 2022;327(1):50. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65.Tang JX, Baranov D, Hammond M, Shaw LM, Eckenhoff MF, Eckenhoff RG. Human Alzheimer and inflammation biomarkers after anesthesia and surgery. Anesthesiology. 2011;115(4):727–32. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66.Reese M, Wong MK, Cheong V, Ha CI, Cooter Wright M, Browndyke J, et al. Cognitive and Cerebrospinal Fluid Alzheimer's Disease-related Biomarker Trajectories in Older Surgical Patients and Matched Nonsurgical Controls. Anesthesiology. 2024;140(5):963–78. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67.Sun LS, Li G, Miller TL, Salorio C, Byrne MW, Bellinger DC, et al. Association Between a Single General Anesthesia Exposure Before Age 36 Months and Neurocognitive Outcomes in Later Childhood. JAMA. 2016;315(21):2312–20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68.Warner DO, Zaccariello MJ, Katusic SK, Schroeder DR, Hanson AC, Schulte PJ, et al. Neuropsychological and Behavioral Outcomes after Exposure of Young Children to Procedures Requiring General Anesthesia: The Mayo Anesthesia Safety in Kids (MASK) Study. Anesthesiology. 2018;129(1):89–105. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69.McCann ME, de Graaff JC, Dorris L, Disma N, Withington D, Bell G, et al. Neurodevelopmental outcome at 5 years of age after general anaesthesia or awake-regional anaesthesia in infancy (GAS): an international, multicentre, randomised, controlled equivalence trial. Lancet. 2019;393(10172):664–77. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70.Ing C, Jackson WM, Zaccariello MJ, Goldberg TE, McCann ME, Grobler A, et al. Prospectively assessed neurodevelopmental outcomes in studies of anaesthetic neurotoxicity in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Anaesth. 2021;126(2):433–44. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71.Reighard C, Junaid S, Jackson WM, Arif A, Waddington H, Whitehouse AJO, et al. Anesthetic Exposure During Childhood and Neurodevelopmental Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(6):e2217427. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72.Bong CL, Ho D, Allen JC, Lim GS, Tan HK, Broekman BFP, et al. Early Neurodevelopmental Outcomes Following Exposure to General Anesthesia in Infancy: EGAIN, a Prospective Cohort Study. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 2023;35(4):394–405. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73.Silber JH, Rosenbaum PR, Reiter JG, Jain S, Hill AS, Hashemi S, et al. Exposure to Operative Anesthesia in Childhood and Subsequent Neurobehavioral Diagnoses: A Natural Experiment Using Appendectomy. Anesthesiology. 2024;141(3):489–99. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74.Wainwright CE, Vidmar S, Anderson V, Bourgeat P, Byrnes C, Carlin JB, et al. Long-term outcomes of early exposure to repeated general anaesthesia in children with cystic fibrosis (CF-GAIN): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled phase 4 trial. Lancet Respir Med. 2024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75.Steiner LA, Johnston AJ, Chatfield DA, Czosnyka M, Coleman MR, Coles JP, et al. The effects of large-dose propofol on cerebrovascular pressure autoregulation in head-injured patients. Anesth Analg. 2003;97(2):572–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76.Hassan W, Nasir YM, Zaini RHM, Shukeri W. Target-controlled Infusion Propofol Versus Sevoflurane Anaesthesia for Emergency Traumatic Brain Surgery: Comparison of the Outcomes . Malays J Med Sci. 2017;24(5):73–82. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77.Engbers F. Practical use of 'Diprifusor' systems. Anaesthesia. 1998;53 Suppl 1:28–34. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78.Glen JB. The development of 'Diprifusor': a TCI system for propofol. Anaesthesia. 1998;53 Suppl 1:13–21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79.Ju LS, Zhu J, Morey TE, Gravenstein N, Seubert CN, Setlow B, et al. Neurobehavioral Abnormalities in Offspring of Young Adult Male Rats With a History of Traumatic Brain Injury. J Neurotrauma. 2024;41(7–8):969–84. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 80.Sackheim AM, Stockwell D, Villalba N, Haines L, Scott CL, Russell S, et al. Traumatic brain injury impairs sensorimotor function in mice. J Surg Res. 2017;213:100–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81.Glenn DE, Acheson DT, Geyer MA, Nievergelt CM, Baker DG, Risbrough VB. Fear learning alterations after traumatic brain injury and their role in development of posttraumatic stress symptoms. Depress Anxiety. 2017;34(8):723–33. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 82.Croker V, McDonald S. Recognition of emotion from facial expression following traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj. 2005;19(10):787–99. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 83.Hopkins MJ, Dywan J, Segalowitz SJ. Altered electrodermal response to facial expression after closed head injury. Brain Inj. 2002;16(3):245–57. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 84.D'Andrea W, Freed S, DePierro J, Nelson B, Seemann C, McKernan S, et al. Didnť Even Blink: Dissociation, Complex Trauma Exposure and Decreased Startle Reactivity. J Trauma Dissociation. 2024:1–20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 85.Kersey J, Alimi E, McArthur AR, Marquez H, Baum C, Skidmore E, et al. ENGAGE-TBI: adaptation of a community-based intervention to improve social participation after brain injury. Brain Inj. 2025;39(6):518–25. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 86.Neumann D, Babbage DR, Zupan B, Willer B. A randomized controlled trial of emotion recognition training after traumatic brain injury. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2015;30(3):E12–23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 87.Hawley LA, Newman JK. Group interactive structured treatment (GIST): a social competence intervention for individuals with brain injury. Brain Inj. 2010;24(11):1292–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 88.Liska GM, Lee JY, Xu K, Sanberg PR, Borlongan CV. Suppressed acoustic startle response in traumatic brain injury masks post-traumatic stress disorder hyper-responsivity. Neuroreport. 2018;29(11):939–44. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 89.Papesh MA, Elliott JE, Callahan ML, Storzbach D, Lim MM, Gallun FJ. Blast Exposure Impairs Sensory Gating: Evidence from Measures of Acoustic Startle and Auditory Event-Related Potentials. J Neurotrauma. 2019;36(5):702–12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 90.Podoshin L, Fradis M. Hearing Loss After Head Injury. Archives of Otolaryngology. 1975;101(1):15–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 91.Krizman J, Colegrove D, Cunningham J, Bonacina S, Nicol T, Nerrie M, et al. Concussion acutely disrupts auditory processing in division I football student-athletes. Brain Inj. 2025;39(1):17–25. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 92.Gallun FJ, Papesh MA, Lewis MS. Hearing complaints among veterans following traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj. 2017;31(9):1183–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 93.Chen JX, Lindeborg M, Herman SD, Ishai R, Knoll RM, Remenschneider A, et al. Systematic review of hearing loss after traumatic brain injury without associated temporal bone fracture. Am J Otolaryngol. 2018;39(3):338–44. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 94.National Academies of Sciences E, Medicine, Health, Medicine D, Board on Health Care S, Board on Health Sciences P, et al. In: Matney C, Bowman K, Berwick D, editors. Traumatic Brain Injury: A Roadmap for Accelerating Progress. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US) Copyright 2022 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.; 2022. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 95.Agoston DV, Vink R, Helmy A, Risling M, Nelson D, Prins M. How to Translate Time: The Temporal Aspects of Rodent and Human Pathobiological Processes in Traumatic Brain Injury. J Neurotrauma. 2019;36(11):1724–37. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 96.Quinn R. Comparing raťs to human's age: how old is my rat in people years? Nutrition. 2005;21(6):775–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 97.Yarnell AM, Barry ES, Mountney A, Shear D, Tortella F, Grunberg NE. The Revised Neurobehavioral Severity Scale (NSS-R) for Rodents. Current Protocols in Neuroscience. 2016;75(1):9.52.1–9..16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 98.Everson CA, Szabo A, Plyer C, Hammeke TA, Stemper BD, Budde MD. Subclinical brain manifestations of repeated mild traumatic brain injury are changed by chronic exposure to sleep loss, caffeine, and sleep aids. Exp Neurol. 2024;381:114928. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 99.Everson CA, Szabo A, Plyer C, Hammeke TA, Stemper BD, Budde MD. Sleep loss, caffeine, sleep aids and sedation modify brain abnormalities of mild traumatic brain injury. Exp Neurol. 2024;372:114620. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 100.Melcher JR, Kiang NYS. Generators of the brainstem auditory evoked potential in cat III: identified cell populations. Hearing Research. 1996;93(1):52–71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 101.Rüttiger L, Singer W, Panford-Walsh R, Matsumoto M, Lee SC, Zuccotti A, et al. The reduced cochlear output and the failure to adapt the central auditory response causes tinnitus in noise exposed rats. PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e57247. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 102.Barnes DE, Kaup A, Kirby KA, Byers AL, Diaz-Arrastia R, Yaffe K. Traumatic brain injury and risk of dementia in older veterans. Neurology. 2014;83(4):312–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
