4.4 Article

Is ventriculomegaly in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus associated with a transmantle gradient in pulsatile intracranial pressure?

期刊

ACTA NEUROCHIRURGICA
卷 152, 期 6, 页码 989-995

出版社

SPRINGER WIEN
DOI: 10.1007/s00701-010-0605-x

关键词

Hydrocephalus; Intracranial pulsatility; Intracranial pressure; Pressure gradient

资金

  1. dPCom AS, Oslo, Norway

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In patients with idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH) and ventriculomegaly, examine whether there is a gradient in pulsatile intracranial pressure (ICP) from within the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of cerebral ventricles (ICPIV) to the subdural (ICPSD) compartment. We hypothesized that pulsatile ICP is higher within the ventricular CSF. The material includes 10 consecutive iNPH patients undergoing diagnostic ICP monitoring as part of pre-operative work-up. Eight patients had simultaneous ICPIV and ICPSD signals, and two patients had simultaneous signals from the lateral ventricle (ICPIV) and the brain parenchyma (ICPPAR). Intracranial pulsatility was characterized by the wave amplitude, rise time, and rise time coefficient; static ICP was characterized by mean ICP. None of the patients demonstrated gradients in pulsatile ICP, that is, we found no evidence of higher pulsatile ICP within the CSF of the cerebral ventricles (ICPIV), as compared to either the subdural (ICPSD) compartment or within the brain parenchyma (ICPPAR). During ventricular infusion testing in one patient, the ventricular ICP (ICPIV) was artificially increased, but this increase in ICPIV produced no gradient in pulsatile ICP from the ventricular CSF (ICPIV) to the parenchyma (ICPPAR). In this cohort of iNPH patients, we found no evidence of transmantle gradient in pulsatile ICP. The data gave no support to the hypothesis that pulsatile ICP is higher within the CSF of the cerebral ventricles (ICPIV) than within the subdural (ICPSD) compartment or the brain parenchyma (ICPPAR) in iNPH patients.

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

4.4
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