Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 28, Issue 11, pp 4504–4513 | Cite as

Changes in sensorimotor-related thalamic diffusion properties and cerebrospinal fluid hydrodynamics predict gait responses to tap test in idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus

  • Ping-Huei Tsai
  • Yung-Chieh Chen
  • Shih-Wei Chiang
  • Teng-Yi Huang
  • Ming-Chung Chou
  • Hua-Shan Liu
  • Hsiao-Wen Chung
  • Giia-Sheun Peng
  • Hsin-I Ma
  • Hung-Wen Kao
  • Cheng-Yu Chen
Magnetic Resonance

Abstract

Objectives

To compare diffusion tensor (DT)-derived indices from the thalamic nuclei and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) hydrodynamic parameters for the prediction of gait responsiveness to the CSF tap test in early iNPH patients.

Methods

In this study, 22 patients with iNPH and 16 normal controls were enrolled with the approval of an institutional review board. DT imaging and phase-contrast magnetic resonance imaging were performed in patients and controls to determine DT-related indices of the sensorimotor-related thalamic nuclei and CSF hydrodynamics. Gait performance was assessed in patients using gait scale before and after the tap test. The Mann-Whitney U test and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis were applied to compare group differences between patients and controls and assess the predictive performance of gait responsiveness to the tap test in the patients.

Results

Fractional anisotropy (FA) and axial diffusivity showed significant increases in the ventrolateral (VL) and ventroposterolateral (VPL) nuclei of the iNPH group compared with those of the control group (p < 0.05). The predictions of gait responsiveness of ventral thalamic FA alone (area under the ROC curve [AUC] < 0.8) significantly outperformed those of CSF hydrodynamics alone (AUC < 0.6). The AUC curve was elevated to 0.812 when the CSF peak systolic velocity and FA value were combined for the VPL nucleus, yielding the highest sensitivity (0.769) and specificity (0.778) to predict gait responses.

Conclusions

Combined measurements of sensorimotor-related thalamic FA and CSF hydrodynamics can provide potential biomarkers for gait response to the CSF tap test in patients with iNPH.

Key Points

Ventrolateral and ventroposterolateral thalamic FA may predict gait responsiveness to tap test.

Thalamic neuroplasticity can be assessed through DTI in idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus.

Changes in the CST associated with gait control could trigger thalamic neuroplasticity.

Activities of sensorimotor-related circuits could alter in patients with gait disturbance.

Management of patients with iNPH could be more appropriate.

Keywords

Hydrocephalus, normal pressure Diffusion tensor imaging Gait Neuronal plasticity Thalamus 

Abbreviations

CSF

Cerebrospinal fluid

CST

Corticospinal tract

D//

Axial diffusivity

D

Radial diffusivity

DTI

Diffusion tensor imaging

FA

Fractional anisotropy

iNPH

Idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus

MD

Mean diffusivity

VA

Ventroanterior

VL

Ventrolateral

VPL

Ventroposterolateral

Notes

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge Wallace Academic Editing for editing this manuscript.

Funding

This study has received funding by grants from the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan, grant NSC 97-2314-B-016-028-MY3 and grant MOST 106-2221-E-038-002.

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Dr. Cheng-Yu Chen.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• prospective

• observational

• performed at one institution

Supplementary material

330_2018_5488_MOESM1_ESM.docx (16 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 16 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Andrén K, Wikkelsø C, Tisell M, Hellström P (2014) Natural course of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 85:806–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Williams MA, Relkin NR (2013) Diagnosis and management of idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus. Neurol Clin Pract 3:375–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hakim S, Adams RD (1965) The special clinical problem of symptomatic hydrocephalus with normal cerebrospinal fluid pressure. Observations on cerebrospinal fluid hydrodynamics. J Neurol Sci 2:307–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Scollato A, Tenenbaum R, Bahl G, Celerini M, Salani B, Di Lorenzo N (2008) Changes in aqueductal CSF stroke volume and progression of symptoms in patients with unshunted idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 29:192–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ravdin LD, Katzen HL, Jackson AE, Tsakanikas D, Assuras S, Relkin NR (2008) Features of gait most responsive to tap test in normal pressure hydrocephalus. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 110:455–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen IH, Huang CI, Liu HC, Chen KK (1994) Effectiveness of shunting in patients with normal pressure hydrocephalus predicted by temporary, controlled-resistance, continuous lumbar drainage: a pilot study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 57:1430–1432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Virhammar J, Cesarini KG, Laurell K (2012) The CSF tap test in normal pressure hydrocephalus: evaluation time, reliability and the influence of pain. Eur J Neurol 19:271–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yamada S, Tsuchiya K, Bradley WG et al (2015) Current and emerging MR imaging techniques for the diagnosis and management of CSF flow disorders: a review of phase-contrast and time-spatial labeling inversion pulse. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 36:623–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dixon GR, Friedman JA, Luetmer PH et al (2002) Use of cerebrospinal fluid flow rates measured by phase-contrast MR to predict outcome of ventriculoperitoneal shunting for idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus. Mayo Clin Proc 77:509–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mase M, Yamada K, Banno T, Miyachi T, Ohara S, Matsumoto T (1998) Quantitative analysis of CSF flow dynamics using MRI in normal pressure hydrocephalus. Acta Neurochir Suppl 71:350–353PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bradley WG (2002) Cerebrospinal fluid dynamics and shunt responsiveness in patients with normal-pressure hydrocephalus. Mayo Clin Proc 77:507–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jurcoane A, Keil F, Szelenyi A, Pfeilschifter W, Singer OC, Hattingen E (2014) Directional diffusion of corticospinal tract supports therapy decisions in idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalusjm. Neuroradiology 56:5–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hattori T, Yuasa T, Aoki S et al (2011) Altered microstructure in corticospinal tract in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: comparison with Alzheimer disease and Parkinson disease with dementia. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 32:1681–1687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Planetta PJ, Schulze ET, Geary EK et al (2013) Thalamic projection fiber integrity in de novo Parkinson disease. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 34:74–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mole JP, Subramanian L, Bracht T, Morris H, Metzler-Baddeley C, Linden DE (2016) Increased fractional anisotropy in the motor tracts of Parkinson's disease suggests compensatory neuroplasticity or selective neurodegeneration. Eur Radiol 26:3327–3335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Krupa DJ, Ghazanfar AA, Nicolelis MA (1999) Immediate thalamic sensory plasticity depends on corticothalamic feedback. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 96:8200–8205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bosch-Bouju C, Hyland BI, Parr-Brownlie LC (2013) Motor thalamus integration of cortical, cerebellar and basal ganglia information: implications for normal and parkinsonian conditions. Front Comput Neurosci 11:163.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2013.00163 eCollection 02013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sommer MA (2003) The role of the thalamus in motor control. Curr Opin Neurobiol 13:663–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ishikawa M, Hashimoto M, Kuwana N et al (2008) Guidelines for management of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 48:S1–S23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Huang TY, Chung HW, Chen MY et al (2004) Supratentorial cerebrospinal fluid production rate in healthy adults: quantification with two-dimensional cine phase-contrast MR imaging with high temporal and spatial resolution. Radiology 233:603–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee JH, Lee HK, Kim JK, Kim HJ, Park JK, Choi CG (2004) CSF flow quantification of the cerebral aqueduct in normal volunteers using phase contrast cine MR imaging. Korean J Radiol 5:81–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Le Bihan D, Mangin JF, Poupon C et al (2001) Diffusion tensor imaging: concepts and applications. J Magn Reson Imaging 13:534–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tournier JD, Calamante F, Connelly A (2012) MRtrix: diffusion tractography in crossing fibre regions. Int J Imaging Syst Technol 22:53–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yamada K, Akazawa K, Yuen S et al (2010) MR imaging of ventral thalamic nuclei. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 31:732–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Seo JP, Jang SH (2013) Different characteristics of the corticospinal tract according to the cerebral origin: DTI study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 34:1359–1363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc Series B 57:289–300Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Morgante F, Naro A, Terranova C et al (2017) Normal sensorimotor plasticity in complex regional pain syndrome with fixed posture of the hand. Mov Disord 32:149–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Audoin B, Guye M, Reuter F et al (2007) Structure of WM bundles constituting the working memory system in early multiple sclerosis: a quantitative DTI tractography study. Neuroimage 36:1324–1330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Juottonen K, Gockel M, Silén T, Hurri H, Hari R, Forss N (2002) Altered central sensorimotor processing in patients with complex regional pain syndrome. Pain 98:315–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Xu J, Li H, Harkins KD et al (2014) Mapping mean axon diameter and axonal volume fraction by MRI using temporal diffusion spectroscopy. Neuroimage 103:10–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tovar-Moll F, Evangelou IE, Chiu AW et al (2009) Thalamic involvement and its impact on clinical disability in patients with multiple sclerosis: a diffusion tensor imaging study at 3T. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 30:1380–1386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Macchi G, Jones EG (1997) Toward an agreement on terminology of nuclear and subnuclear divisions of the motor thalamus. J Neurosurg 86:77–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bornschlegl M, Asanuma H (1987) Importance of the projection from the sensory to the motor cortex for recovery of motor function following partial thalamic lesion in the monkey. Brain Res 437:121–130.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-8993(1087)91533-91532 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Middleton FA, Strick PL (2000) Basal ganglia and cerebellar loops: motor and cognitive circuits. Brain Res Brain Res Rev 31:236–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Siegfried J, Lippitz B (1994) Chronic electrical stimulation of the VL-VPL complex and of the pallidum in the treatment of movement disorders: personal experience since 1982. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 62:71–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Alomar S, King NK, Tam J, Bari AA, Hamani C, Lozano AM (2017) Speech and language adverse effects after thalamotomy and deep brain stimulation in patients with movement disorders: A meta-analysis. Mov Disord 32:53–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Fasano A, Herzog J, Raethjen J et al (2010) Gait ataxia in essential tremor is differentially modulated by thalamic stimulation. Brain 133:3635–3648CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ping-Huei Tsai
    • 1
    • 2
  • Yung-Chieh Chen
    • 3
    • 4
  • Shih-Wei Chiang
    • 5
  • Teng-Yi Huang
    • 6
  • Ming-Chung Chou
    • 7
  • Hua-Shan Liu
    • 8
  • Hsiao-Wen Chung
    • 9
  • Giia-Sheun Peng
    • 10
  • Hsin-I Ma
    • 11
  • Hung-Wen Kao
    • 5
  • Cheng-Yu Chen
    • 3
    • 4
    • 12
  1. 1.Department of Medical Imaging and Radiological SciencesChung Shan Medical UniversityTaichungTaiwan
  2. 2.Department of Medical ImagingChung Shan Medical University HospitalTaichungTaiwan
  3. 3.Research Center of Translational Imaging, School of Medicine, College of MedicineTaipei Medical UniversityTaipeiTaiwan
  4. 4.Department of Medical ImagingTaipei Medical University Hospital, Taipei Medical UniversityTaipeiTaiwan
  5. 5.Department of RadiologyTri-Service General Hospital and National Defense Medical CenterTaipeiTaiwan
  6. 6.Department of Electrical EngineeringNational Taiwan University of Science and TechnologyTaipeiTaiwan
  7. 7.Department of Medical Imaging and Radiological SciencesKaohsiung Medical UniversityKaohsiungTaiwan
  8. 8.School of Biomedical Engineering, College of Biomedical EngineeringTaipei Medical UniversityTaipeiTaiwan
  9. 9.Graduate Institute of Biomedical Electronics and BioinformaticsNational Taiwan UniversityTaipeiTaiwan
  10. 10.Department of NeurologyTri-Service General Hospital and National Defense Medical CenterTaipeiTaiwan
  11. 11.Department of Neurological SurgeryTri-Service General Hospital and National Defense Medical CenterTaipeiTaiwan
  12. 12.Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, College of MedicineTaipei Medical UniversityTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations