[Risk factors for posttraumatic fits and XXXX ].

@entity1 @entity131 @entity932 @entity548 @entity302 @entity130
There is still a considerable controversy about the usefulness of antiepileptic prophylaxis after @entity131 . Overall incidence of posttraumatic fits and @entity302 's is well known, but an individual decision on prophylaxis requires knowledge about the individual risk. We performed a prospective observational study on 612 @entity1 with @entity131 of every degree of severity. Follow-up by phone call included 96.2% of the study population after 6 month and 91.2% after 36 month, respectively. The overall incidence for early fits (within 7 days after @entity130 ), late fits (up to 36 month) and @entity302 (as defined by the International League Against @entity302 ) was 4.2%, 3.7% and 2.5%, respectively. These incidences increased according to the severity of the @entity130 , but the most powerful single predictor was @entity932 . There was no significant difference related to the @entity548 localisation. Development of @entity302 was much more common after late fits (48%) than after early fits (17%). These features established a hierarchy of risks for the development of @entity302 : no @entity932 /no fit: 1% (4/437), @entity932 /no fit: 8% (10/122), @entity932 /early fit: 16% (3/19), @entity932 /late fit: 53% (7/13). If prophylactic antiepileptic treatment is desired, but should be restricted to @entity1 at high risk. These are @entity1 with @entity932 --are a well defined high risk group--when their first fit is a late fit.
