Advertisement

Neuroimaging in Pediatric Hydrocephalus

  • Pradeep KrishnanEmail author
  • Charles Raybaud
  • Sunitha Palasamudram
  • Manohar Shroff
Review Article

Abstract

The objective of this review is to discuss the role of neuroimaging in evaluating pediatric and fetal hydrocephalus based on possible pathophysiologic mechanisms and in the context of differing etiology. Although conventional brain imaging with ultrasound (US), computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is commonly used to assess for ventricular enlargement, however, the underlying mechanisms and management of hydrocephalus is a challenge in pediatric population and fetal hydrocephalus. MRI helps define the possible nature of the obstruction, and provides useful functional and anatomic information. MR imaging, in both pediatric and fetal hydrocephalus, thus may help in better understanding of the possible pathophysiologic mechanisms of the varied causal factors. The article focuses on the usage of MRI sequences in both diagnosis and follow-up of pediatric and fetal hydrocephalus, to be able to investigate all possible etiopathogenesis through the CSF pathway and to assess the efficacy of treatment in a non-invasive standardized manner.

Keywords

Pediatric Hydrocephalus Fetal MRI 

Notes

Authors’ Contribution

PK: Manuscript revision and providing images; CR: Concept, providing images and editing the manuscript; SP: Providing images and references; MS: Concept editing and revision of the manuscript. MS is the guarantor for this paper.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Rekate HL. The definition and classification of hydrocephalus: a personal recommendation to stimulate debate. Cerebrospinal Fluid Res. 2008;5:2.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rekate HL. A contemporary definition and classification of hydrocephalus. Semin Pediatr Neurol. 2009;16:9–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rekate HL. A consensus on the classification of hydrocephalus: its utility in the assessment of abnormalities of cerebrospinal fluid dynamics. Childs Nerv Syst. 2011;27:1535–41.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Raybaud C. MR assessment of pediatric hydrocephalus: a road map. Childs Nerv Syst. 2016;32:19–41.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Patel DM, Tubbs RS, Pate G, Johnston JM Jr, Blount JP. Fast-sequence MRI studies for surveillance imaging in pediatric hydrocephalus. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2014;13:440–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jeng S, Gupta N, Wrensch M, Zhao S, Wu YW. Prevalence of congenital hydrocephalus in California, 1991-2000. Pediatr Neurol. 2011;45:67–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kahle KT, Kulkarni AV, Limbrick DD Jr, Warf BC. Hydrocephalus in children. Lancet. 2016;387:788–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kestle JR, Kulkarni AV, Warf BC. Pediatric hydrocephalus: a continuing evolution in our understanding and management. Neurosurg Focus. 2016;41:E1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Greitz D. Paradigm shift in hydrocephalus research in legacy of Dandy’s pioneering work: rationale for third ventriculostomy in communicating hydrocephalus. Childs Nerv Syst. 2007;23:487–9.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Greitz D. The hydrodynamic hypothesis versus the bulk flow hypothesis. Neurosurg Rev. 2004;27:299–300.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Patel SK, Yuan W, Mangano FT. Advanced neuroimaging techniques in pediatric hydrocephalus. Pediatr Neurosurg. 2017;52:436–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nielsen NB, Hydrocephalus A. In: Wallace CCCDC, editor. Nursing Care of Pediatric Neurosurgery. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 2013. p. 37–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dincer A, Ozek MM. Radiologic evaluation of pediatric hydrocephalus. Childs Nerv Syst. 2011;27:1543–62.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yamada S, Kelly E. Cerebrospinal fluid dynamics and the pathophysiology of hydrocephalus: new concepts. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2016;37:84–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Segev Y, Metser U, Beni-Adani L, et al. Morphometric study of the midsagittal MR imaging plane in cases of hydrocephalus and atrophy and in normal brains. AJNR. 2001;22:1674–9.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Raut T, Garg RK, Jain A, et al. Hydrocephalus in tuberculous meningitis: incidence, its predictive factors and impact on the prognosis. J Infect. 2013;66:330–7.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kuruvilla LC. Benign enlargement of sub-arachnoid spaces in infancy. J Pediatr Neurosci. 2014;9:129–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McAllister JP 2nd. Pathophysiology of congenital and neonatal hydrocephalus. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012;17:285–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yamasaki M, Nonaka M, Bamba Y, Teramoto C, Ban C, Pooh RK. Diagnosis, treatment, and long-term outcomes of fetal hydrocephalus. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012;17:330–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ferland RJ, Batiz LF, Neal J, et al. Disruption of neural progenitors along the ventricular and subventricular zones in periventricular heterotopia. Hum Mol Genet. 2008;18:497–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cavalheiro S, Moron AF, Zymberg ST, Dastoli P. Fetal hydrocephalus – prenatal treatment. Childs Nerv Syst. 2003;19:561–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Dr. K C Chaudhuri Foundation 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pradeep Krishnan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Charles Raybaud
    • 1
  • Sunitha Palasamudram
    • 2
  • Manohar Shroff
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of NeuroradiologyThe Hospital for Sick ChildrenTorontoCanada
  2. 2.The Hospital for Sick ChildrenTorontoCanada
  3. 3.Department of Diagnostic ImagingThe Hospital for Sick ChildrenTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations