4.2 Article

Slight elevation of baseline intracranial pressure after fluid infusion into CSF space in patients with hydrocephalus

期刊

NEUROLOGICAL RESEARCH
卷 26, 期 6, 页码 628-631

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1179/016164104225017596

关键词

normal pressure hydrocephalus; intracranial pressure; CSF infusion study

资金

  1. Medical Research Council [G9439390] Funding Source: researchfish
  2. Medical Research Council [G9439390] Funding Source: Medline
  3. MRC [G9439390] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To investigate the elevation of resting cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) pressure recorded after a CSF infusion test in patients with hydrocephalus. Material and methods: Fifty patients (30 men and 20 women, mean age 68+/-13 years) with ventriculomegaly and clinical symptoms of normal pressure hydrocephalus have been studied Lumbar (56%) or intraventricular (44%) computerized infusion studies were performed to investigate the hydrodynamics of CSF. After infusion, the fall in ICP was recorded until a steady-state level was achieved and the difference between pre- and post-infusion resting ICP was calculated (DeltaICP). Results: A positive difference (>2 mm Hg) between post- and pre-infusion resting ICP was identified in 31 infusion tests (62%). The mean value of the difference was 6.7 with an SD of 3.5 mm Hg. The patients;who demonstrated this phenomenon had a greater elastance coefficient (p<0.05); DeltaICP was positively correlated with age (R=0.27, p=0.03), with the size of the brain's ventricles (R=0.63, p=0.03) and inversely with the severity of clinical impairment (Stein-Langfitt score R=-0.61, p=0.02; normal pressure hydrocephalus score: R=0.54; p<0.05). DeltaICP was independent of the site of infusion (lumbar or ventricular). Conclusion: In patients with a 'stiffer' brain, ICP returns to the resting level after the infusion test at a slightly higher level than before the test. The magnitude of this increase is greater when ventricles are more dilated and clinical symptoms are less severe.

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

4.2
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