4.6 Article

Cerebral microdialysis and intracranial pressure monitoring in patients with idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus: association with clinical response to extended lumbar drainage and shunt surgery Clinical article

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY
卷 112, 期 2, 页码 414-424

出版社

AMER ASSOC NEUROLOGICAL SURGEONS
DOI: 10.3171/2009.5.JNS09122

关键词

idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus; microdialysis; cerebral metabolism; intracranial pulse pressure; shunt response

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Object. This study was performed in patients with idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH) to monitor cerebral metabolism with microdialysis (MD) and intracranial pressure (ICP) readings, and relate to the clinical responses to extended lumbar drainage (ELD) and shunt surgery. Methods. The baseline levels of MD metabolites and ICP were monitored overnight in 40 consecutive patients with iNPH. In a subset of 28 patients, monitoring was continued during 3 days of ELD. Thirty-one patients received a ventriculoperitoneal shunt. The clinical severity of iNPH was determined before and then 3 and 6-12 months after shunt surgery. Results. Altered levels of MD markers (lactate, pyruvate, lactate/pyruvate ratio, glutamate, and/or glycerol) were seen in all patients at baseline; these improved during ELD. Despite normal static ICP (mean ICP), the pulsatile ICP (the ICP wave amplitude) was increased in 24 patients (60%). Only the level of the ICP wave amplitude differentiated the ELD and/or shunt responders from nonresponders. Conclusions. The MD monitoring indicated low-grade cerebral ischemia in patients with iNPH; during ELD, cerebral metabolism improved. The pulsatile ICP (the ICP wave amplitude) was the only variable differentiating the clinical responders from the nonresponders. The authors suggest that the pulsatile ICP reflects the intracranial compliance and that CSF diversion improves the biophysical milieu of the nerve cells, which subsequently may improve their biochemical milieu.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据