4.4 Article

Utility of CSF pressure monitoring to identify idiopathic intracranial hypertension without papilledema in patients with chronic daily headache

期刊

CEPHALALGIA
卷 24, 期 6, 页码 495-502

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2982.2004.00688.x

关键词

chronic daily headache; idiopathic intracranial hypertension; intracranial pressure monitoring; papilledema; shunt

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of the present study was to report on the utility of continuous P-csf monitoring in establishing the diagnosis of idiopathic intracranial hypertension without papilledema (IIHWOP) in chronic daily headache (CDH) patients. We report a series of patients (n = 10) with refractory headaches and suspected IIHWOP referred to us for continuous P-csf monitoring between 1991 and 2000. P-csf was measured via a lumbar catheter and analysed for mean, peak, highest pulse amplitude and abnormal waveforms. A 1-2 day trial of continuous controlled CSF drainage (10 cc/ h) followed P-csf monitoring. Response to CSF drainage was defined as improvement in headache symptoms. Patients with abnormal waveforms underwent a ventriculoperitoneal (VPS) or lumboperitoneal (LPS) shunt insertion. All patients had normal resting P-csf (8 +/- 1 mmHg) defined as ICP < 15 mmHg. During sleep, all patients had B-waves and 90% had plateau waves or near plateau waves. All patients underwent either a VPS or LPS procedure. All reported improvement of their headache after surgery. Demonstration of pathological P-csf patterns by continuous P-csf monitoring was essential in confirming the diagnosis of IIHWOP, and provided objective evidence to support the decision for shunt surgery. Increased P-csf was seen mostly during sleep and was intermittent, suggesting that P-csf elevation may be missed by a single spot-check LP measurement. The similarity between IIHWOP and CDH suggests that continuous P-csf monitoring in CDH patients may have an important diagnostic role that should be further investigated.

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