The Prediction of Shunt Response in Idiopathic Normal-Pressure Hydrocephalus Based on Intracranial Pressure Monitoring and Lumbar Infusion
Background: Intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring and infusion studies have long been used in the preoperative workup of patients with suspected idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH). We have analysed the predictive values of different measures derived from both investigations, emphasising the differences between responders and nonresponders. Materials and methods: ICP monitoring and lumbar infusion studies were routinely performed during a 6-year period. Shunting was proposed when the resistance to cerebrospinal fluid outflow (ROUT) >12 mmHg/ml/min and/or a minimum 15 % of slow waves were detected. The outcome was evaluated 6 months after surgery. Recorded data from ICP monitoring were mean pressure and pulse amplitude, the total percentage of slow waves and the presence of different types of slow waves following the classification proposed by Raftopoulos et al. Recorded data from lumbar infusion studies were mean values of pressure and pulse amplitude during three epochs (basal, early infusion and plateau), ROUT and the pulsatility response to the increase in mean pressure during the infusion. This response was quantified by two pulse amplitude indexes: the pulse amplitude index during the early infusion stage (A1) and the pulse amplitude index during the plateau stage (A2). Results: Thirty shunted patients were evaluated at the end of the follow-up and 23 (76.7 %) of them improved. Differences in the percentage of slow waves, ROUT and both pulsatility indexes were not statistically significant. The proportion of patients with great symmetrical waves and pulse amplitude during the early infusion stage were higher in responders (p < 0.05). The predictive analysis yielded the highest accuracy, with ROUT and A1 as a logical “OR” combination. Conclusion: The combined use of ICP monitoring and lumbar infusion to forecast the response to shunting in patients with suspected iNPH did not improve the accuracy provided by any of them alone.
KeywordsCerebrospinal fluid dynamics Intracranial pressure monitoring Normal-pressure hydrocephalus Slow waves
We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Teresa Ek in correcting the manuscript.
Conflict of Interest Statement
We declare that we have no conflict of interest.
- 5.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 87:687–693CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Eide PK, Brean A (2010) Cerebrospinal fluid pulse pressure amplitude during lumbar infusion in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus can predict response to shunting. Cerebrospinal Fluid Res 7:5. doi: 10.1186/1743-8454-7-5 [pii]
- 16.Janny P (1950) La pression intra-crânniene chez l’homme. Méthode d’enregistrement – Etude de ses variations et de ses rapports avec les signes cliniques et oftlamologiques. Thesis, ParisGoogle Scholar
- 23.Lemaire JJ, Chazal J, Gutknecht JL, Picard P, Irthum B, Boire JY (1994) Effects of acute compliance fluctuation on slow ICP waves: frequential aspects. In: Nagai H, Kamiya K, Ishii S (eds) Intracranial pressure IX. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg/New York/Tokyo, pp 184–188Google Scholar
- 28.Pickard JD, Matheson M (1980) Intraventricular pressure waves – the best predictive test for shunting in normal pressure hydrocephalus. In: Shulman K, Marmarou A, Miller JD, Becker DP, Hochwald GM, Brock M (eds) Intracranial pressure IV. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg/New York, pp 498–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar