Acta neurologica Scandinavica · 2011
Clinical assessment of cerebrospinal fluid dynamics in hydrocephalus. Guide to interpretation based on observational study.
СтатьяПоддержка правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Weerakkody R A, Czosnyka M, Schuhmann M U, Schmidt E, Keong N, Santarius T, Pickard J D, Czosnyka Z
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The term hydrocephalus encompasses a range of disorders characterised by clinical symptoms, abnormal brain imaging and derangement of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) dynamics. The ability to elucidate which patients would benefit from CSF diversion (a shunt or third ventriculostomy) is often unclear. Similar difficulties are often encountered in shunted patients to predict the scope for improvement by shunt re-adjustment or revision. In this study we aimed to update our knowledge of how key quantitative parameters describing CSF dynamics may be used in diagnosis of shunt-responsive hydrocephalus and in the assessment of shunt function.
METHODS: A number of quantitative parameters [including resistance to CSF outflow (Rcsf), pulse amplitude of intracranial pressure waveform (AMP), RAP index and slow vasogenic waves] were studies in 1423 patients with 2665 CSF infusion tests and 305 overnight intracranial pressure (ICP)-monitoring sessions over a 17 year period.
OBSERVATIONS: We demonstrate our observations for typical values of Pb, Rcsf, AMP, slow vasogenic waves derived from infusion studies or overnight ICP monitoring in differentiating atrophy from shunt-responsive normal pressure hydrocephalus or acute hydrocephalus. From the same variables tested on shunted patients we demonstrate a standardised approach to help differentiate a properly-functioning shunt from underdrainage or overdrainage.
CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative variables derived from CSF dynamics allow differentiation between clinically overlapping entities such as shunt-responsive normal pressure hydrocephalus and brain atrophy (not shunt responsive) as well as allowing the detection of shunt malfunction (partial or complete blockage) or overdrainage. This observational study is intended to serve as an update for our understanding of quantitative testing of CSF dynamics.
METHODS: A number of quantitative parameters [including resistance to CSF outflow (Rcsf), pulse amplitude of intracranial pressure waveform (AMP), RAP index and slow vasogenic waves] were studies in 1423 patients with 2665 CSF infusion tests and 305 overnight intracranial pressure (ICP)-monitoring sessions over a 17 year period.
OBSERVATIONS: We demonstrate our observations for typical values of Pb, Rcsf, AMP, slow vasogenic waves derived from infusion studies or overnight ICP monitoring in differentiating atrophy from shunt-responsive normal pressure hydrocephalus or acute hydrocephalus. From the same variables tested on shunted patients we demonstrate a standardised approach to help differentiate a properly-functioning shunt from underdrainage or overdrainage.
CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative variables derived from CSF dynamics allow differentiation between clinically overlapping entities such as shunt-responsive normal pressure hydrocephalus and brain atrophy (not shunt responsive) as well as allowing the detection of shunt malfunction (partial or complete blockage) or overdrainage. This observational study is intended to serve as an update for our understanding of quantitative testing of CSF dynamics.