Advertisement

Acta Neurochirurgica

, Volume 160, Issue 5, pp 1097–1103 | Cite as

Validation of Davson’s equation in patients suffering from idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus

  • Afroditi-Despina Lalou
  • Virginia Levrini
  • Matthew Garnett
  • Eva Nabbanja
  • Dong-Joo Kim
  • Laurent Gergele
  • Anna Bjornson
  • Zofia Czosnyka
  • Marek Czosnyka
Original Article - Neurosurgery Training

Abstract

Introduction

The so-called Davson’s equation relates baseline intracranial pressure (ICP) to resistance to cerebrospinal fluid outflow (Rout), formation of cerebrospinal fluid (If) and sagittal sinus pressure (PSS) There is a controversy over whether this fundamental equation is applicable in patients with normal pressure hydrocephalus (NPH). We investigated the relationship between Rout and ICP and also other compensatory, clinical and demographic parameters in NPH patients.

Method

We carried out a retrospective study of 229 patients with primary NPH who had undergone constant-rate infusion studies in our hospital. Data was recorded and processed using ICM+ software. Relationships between variables were sought by calculating Pearson product correlation coefficients and p values.

Results

We found a significant, albeit weak, relationship between ICP and Rout (R = 0.17, p = 0.0049), Rout and peak-to-peak amplitude of ICP (AMP) (R = 0.27, p = 3.577e-05) and Rout and age (R = 0.16, p = 0.01306).

Conclusions

The relationship found between ICP and Rout provides indirect evidence to support disturbed Cerebrospinal fluid circulation as a key factor in disturbed CSF dynamics in NPH. Weak correlation may indicate that other factors—variable PSS and formation of CSF outflow—contribute heavily to linear model expressed by Davson’s equation.

Keywords

Normal pressure hydrocephalus Resistance to CSF outflow Intracranial pressure Davson’s equation 

Notes

Funding

MC and DJK are supported by a grant of the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI), funded by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea (grant number: HI17C1790).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

None.

Ethical approval

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Adams RD, Fisher CM, Hakim S, Ojeman RG, Sweet W (1965) Symptomatic occult hydrocephalus with “normal” cerebrospinal fluid pressure. N Engl J Med 273(3):117–126CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andersson N (2007) Cerebrospinal fluid infusion methods: development and validation on patients with idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. (Doctoral dissertation, Umeå universitet). http://umu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A140775&dswid=-5901
  3. 3.
    Andersson N, Malm J, Bäcklund T, Eklund A (2005) Assessment of cerebrospinal fluid outflow conductance using constant-pressure infusion—a method with real time estimation of reliability. Physiol Meas 26(6):1137–1148CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bech-Azeddine R, Gjerris F, Waldemar G, Czosnyka M, Juhler M (2005) Intraventricular or lumbar infusion test in adult communicating hydrocephalus? Practical consequences and clinical outcome of shunt operation. Acta Neurochir 147(10):1027–1036CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bech RA, Juhler M, Waldemar G, Klinken L, Gjerris F (1997) Frontal brain and leptomeningeal biopsy specimens correlated with cerebrospinal fluid outflow resistance and B-wave activity in patients suspected of normal-pressure hydrocephalus. Neurosurgery 40(3):497–502PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bellur SN, Chandra V, McDonald LW (1980) Arachnoidal cell hyperplasia. Its relationship to aging and chronic renal failure. Arch Pathol Lab Med 104(8):414–416PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boon AJ, Tans JT, Delwel EJ, Egeler-Peerdeman SM, Hanlo PW, Wurzer HA, Avezaat CJ, de Jong DA, Gooskens RH, Hermans J (1997) Dutch normal-pressure hydrocephalus study: prediction of outcome after shunting by resistance to outflow of cerebrospinal fluid. J Neurosurg 87(5):687–693CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boon AJW, Tans JTJ, Delwel EJ, Egeler-Peerdeman SM, Hanlo PW, Wurzer HAL, Hermans J (2000) The Dutch normal-pressure hydrocephalus study. How to select patients for shunting? An analysis of four diagnostic criteria Surg Neurol 53(3):201–207PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Børgesen SE, Albeck MJ, Gjerris F, Czosnyka M, Laniewski P (1992) Computerized infusion test compared to steady pressure constant infusion test in measurement of resistance to CSF outflow. Acta Neurochir 119(1–4):12–16CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brgesen SE, Gjerris FLEMMING (1982) The predictive value of conductance to outflow of CSF in Normal pressure hydrocephalus. Brain J Neurol 105(Pt1):65-86Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Czosnyka M, Czosnyka Z, Agarwal-harding KJ, Pickard JD (2012) Hydrocephalus. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-0923-6
  12. 12.
    Czosnyka M, Czosnyka Z, Momjian S, Pickard JD (2004) Cerebrospinal fluid dynamics. Physiol Meas 25(5):R51–R76CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Czosnyka M, Czosnyka ZH, Whitfield PC, Donovan T, Pickard JD (2001) Age dependence of cerebrospinal pressure-volume compensation in patients with hydrocephalus. J Neurosurg 94(3):482–486CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Eide P, Fremming A, Sorteberg A (2003) Lack of relationship between resistance to cerebrospinal fluid outflow and intracranial pressure in normal pressure hydrocephalus. Acta Neurol Scand 108(14):381–388CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ekstedt JAN (1978) CSF hydrodynamic studies in man. J Neurol Psychiatry 41:345–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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(4):307–327CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kahlon B, Sundbärg G, Rehncrona S (2002) Comparison between the lumbar infusion and CSF tap tests to predict outcome after shunt surgery in suspected normal pressure hydrocephalus. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 73(6):721–726CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kalyvas A V, Hughes M, Koutsarnakis C, Moris D, Liakos F, Sakas DE, Stranjalis G, Fouyas I (2017) Efficacy, complications and cost of surgical interventions for idiopathic intracranial hypertension: a systematic review of the literature. Acta Neurochir 33–49Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kim D-J, Kim H, Kim Y-T, Yoon BC, Czosnyka Z, Park K-W, Czosnyka M (2015) Thresholds of resistance to CSF outflow in predicting shunt responsiveness. Neurol Res 37(4):332–340CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lalou AD, Czosnyka M, Donnelly J, Pickard JD, Garnett MR, Nabbanja E, Keong NC, Czosnyka Z (2017) Cerebral autoregulation, its relationship with Rout and outcome after CSF diversion in normal pressure hydrocephalus. J Neurosurg.  https://doi.org/10.1101/223867
  21. 21.
    Meier U, Miethke C (2003) Predictors of outcome in patients with normal-pressure hydrocephalus. J Clin Neurosci 10(4):453–459CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Momjian S, Owler BK, Czosnyka Z, Czosnyka M, Pena A, Pickard JD (2004) Pattern of white matter regional cerebral blood flow and autoregulation in normal pressure hydrocephalus. Brain 127(pt5):965–972Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nabbanja E, Czosnyka M, Keong NC, Garnett MR, Pickard JD, Lalou AD CZI (2018) Is there a link between ICP-derived infusion test parameters and outcome after shunting in NPH? In: Heldt T (ed) Intracranial pressure & neuromonitoring XVI. Acta Neurochir Suppl.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65798-1
  24. 24.
    National Institute For Health And Clinical Excellence (2007) Lumbar infusion test for the investigation of normal pressure hydrocephalus. In: Interventional procedure guidance [IPG263] (March). p 1–23. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ipg263
  25. 25.
    Pickard J (1988) Physiology and pathophysiology of the cerebrospinal fluid. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 51(3):469–470CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Smielewski P, Czosnyka M, Zabolotny W, Kirkpatrick P, Richards H, Pickard JD (1997) A computing system for the clinical and experimental investigation of cerebrovascular reactivity. Int J Clin Monit Comput 14(3):185–198CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sundström N, Andersson K, Marmarou A, Malm J, Eklund A (2010) Comparison between 3 infusion methods to measure cerebrospinal fluid outflow conductance. J Neurosurg 113(6):1294–1303CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wikkelsø C, Hellström P, Klinge P et al (2013) The European iNPH multicentre study on the predictive values of resistance to CSF outflow and the CSF tap test in patients with idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 84(5):562–568CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Neurosurgery, Cambridge University HospitalUniversity of Cambridge Department of Clinical NeuroscienceCambridgeUK
  2. 2.School of Clinical MedicineUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  3. 3.University of KoreaSeoulSouth Korea
  4. 4.Ramsay Générale de Santé, Hôpital privé de la LoireSaint EtienneFrance

Personalised recommendations