4.5 Article

Supplementary Tests in Idiopathic Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: A Single-Center Experience with a Combined Lumbar Infusion Test and Tap Test

期刊

WORLD NEUROSURGERY
卷 100, 期 -, 页码 567-574

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.01.003

关键词

CSF tap test; Lumbar infusion test; Normal pressure hydrocephalus; VP shunt surgery

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: The lumbar infusion test (LIT) and tap test (TT) have previously been described for the diagnosis and selection of appropriate surgical candidates in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 81 consecutive patients with a clinical diagnosis of iNPH selected for supplementary testing. Clinical evaluation was scored with the Japanese Grading Scale for Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus, the Global Deterioration Score, and the modified Rankin Scale (mRS). The test protocol included a cerebrospinal fluid pressure monitoring (PMi), an LIT, and a TT. Patients were selected for surgery if outflow resistance was >= 14 mm Hg/mL/minute or if a clinical improvementwas recorded after TT. RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients were selected for ventriculoperitoneal shunting; 72.8% had a positive PMi or LIT, 74.1% had a positive TT, and 63.0% were positive to both tests. Complications were all transient. Clinical evaluation at 12 months after shunting showed a global improvement in 60 patients (88.2%). Overall, 75.0% of patients had no significant disability (mRS score, 1 and 2), 20.6% had an mRS score of 3 or 4, and 4.4% had severe disability after surgery. The positive predictive value of PMi/LIT, TT, or both combined was similar (89.8, 90.0, and 88.2%); however, 21.7% of patients who improved after surgery were selected with either a positive LIT or TT alone. CONCLUSIONS: LIT and TT are complementary and they can easily be combined in sequence with a low complication rate and high probability of selecting patients with iNPH who may benefit from ventriculoperitoneal shunt surgery.

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

4.5
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