Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 24 items for

  • Author or Editor: Manjul Tripathi x
  • Refine by Access: all x
Clear All Modify Search
Free access

Nishant S. Yagnick, Manjul Tripathi, and Sandeep Mohindra

Free access

Manjul Tripathi, Dhaval P. Shukla, Dhananjaya Ishwar Bhat, Indira Devi Bhagavatula, and Tejesh Mishra

The issue of head injury in a noncontact sport like cricket is a matter of great debate and it carries more questions than answers. Recent incidents of fatal head injuries in individuals wearing a helmet have caused some to question the protective value of the helmet. The authors discuss the pattern, type of injury, incidents, and location of cranio-facio-ocular injuries in professional cricket to date. They evaluate the history of usage of the helmet in cricket, changes in design, and the protective value, and they compare the efficacy of various sports' helmets with injury profiles similar to those in cricket. The drop test and air cannon test are compared for impact energy attenuation performance of cricket helmets. A total of 36 cases of head injuries were identified, of which 5 (14%) were fatal and 9 (22%) were career-terminating events. Batsmen are the most vulnerable to injury, bearing 86% of the burden, followed by wicketkeepers (8%) and fielders (5.5%). In 53% of cases, the ball directly hit the head, while in 19.5% of cases the ball entered the gap between the peak and the faceguard. Ocular injuries to 3 wicketkeepers proved to be career-terminating injuries. The air cannon test is a better test for evaluating cricket helmets than the drop test. Craniofacial injuries are more common than popularly believed. There is an urgent need to improve the efficacy and compliance of protective restraints in cricket. A strict injury surveillance system with universal acceptance is needed to identify the burden of injuries and modes for their prevention.

Restricted access

Harsh Deora, Nishant S. Yagnick, and Manjul Tripathi

Full access

Manjul Tripathi, Pravin Salunke, and Kanchan Kumar Mukherjee

Free access

Harsh Deora, Kanwaljeet Garg, Manjul Tripathi, Shashwat Mishra, and Bipin Chaurasia


The evolution of the neurosurgical specialty in lower-middle-income countries is uniformly a narrative of continuous struggle for recognition and resource allocation. Therefore, it is not surprising that neurosurgical education and residency training in these countries is relatively nascent. Dr. Harvey Cushing in 1901 declared that he would specialize in neurosurgery and gave his greatest contribution to the advancement of neurosurgical education by laying the foundations of a structured residency training program. Similar efforts in lower-middle-income countries have been impeded by economic instability and the lack of well-established medical education paradigms. The authors sought to evaluate the residency programs in these nations by conducting a survey among the biggest stakeholders in these educational programs: the neurosurgical residents.


A questionnaire addressing various aspects of the residency program from a resident’s perspective was prepared with Google Forms and circulated among neurosurgery residents through social media and email groups. Where applicable, a 5-point Likert scale was used to grade the responses to the questions. Responses were collected from May to October 2019 and analyzed using descriptive statistics. Complete anonymity of the respondents was ensured to keep the responses unbiased.


A total of 195 responses were received, with 189 of them from lower-middle-income countries (LMICs). The majority of these were from India (75%), followed by Brazil and Pakistan. An abiding concern among residents was lack of work hour regulations, inadequate exposure to emerging subspecialties, and the need for better hands-on training (> 60% each). Of the training institutions represented, 89% were offering more than 500 major neurosurgical surgeries per year, and 40% of the respondents never got exposure to any subspecialty. The popularity of electronic learning resources was discernible and most residents seemed to be satisfied with the existent system of evaluation. Significant differences (p < 0.05) among responses from India compared with those from other countries were found in terms of work hour regulations and subspecialty exposure.


It is prudent that concerned authorities in LMICs recognize and address the deficiencies perceived by neurosurgery residents in their training programs. A determined effort in this direction would be endorsed and assisted by a host of international neurosurgical societies when it is felt that domestic resources may not be adequate. Quality control and close scrutiny of training programs should ensure that the interests of neurosurgical trainees are best served.