P K Eide1, A D Fremming, A Sorteberg. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, The National Hospital, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. per.kristian.eide@rikshospitalet.no
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore whether calculation of resistance to cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) outflow (Rout) by the lumbar constant rate infusion test in a reliable way predicts the intracranial pressure (ICP) profile in normal pressure hydrocephalus (NPH). METHODS: A prospective study was undertaken including 16 cases with clinical signs of normal pressure hydrocephalus that were investigated with both continuous ICP monitoring and the lumbar constant rate infusion test. Intracranial pressure monitoring was performed for about 24 h, and supplied with a simultaneous lumbar constant rate infusion test at the end of the monitoring period. The pressure recordings were analysed using the Sensometrics Pressure Analyser. Various characteristics of the pressure curves were compared. RESULTS: The continuous ICP recordings were considered as normal (mean ICP<11.5 mmHg) in all 16 cases. The lumbar infusion test showed an apparently abnormal resistance to CSF outflow (Rout) (> or =12.0 mmHg/ml/min) in 12 of 16 cases. There was no relationship between lumbar Rout and mean ICP during sleep. We could not find any relationship between lumbar Rout and number of nightly ICP elevations of 1525 mmHg lasting 0.5 or 1 min. Neither resistance to CSF outflow (Rout) nor mean ICP during sleep was related to the ventricular size. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this prospective study revealed no significant relationship between resistance to CSF outflow (Rout) and the ICP profile in NPH cases. The results also suggest that caution should be made when predicting the ICP profile on the basis of measuring the lumbar CSF pressure for a few minutes duration.
OBJECTIVE: To explore whether calculation of resistance to cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) outflow (Rout) by the lumbar constant rate infusion test in a reliable way predicts the intracranial pressure (ICP) profile in normal pressure hydrocephalus (NPH). METHODS: A prospective study was undertaken including 16 cases with clinical signs of normal pressure hydrocephalus that were investigated with both continuous ICP monitoring and the lumbar constant rate infusion test. Intracranial pressure monitoring was performed for about 24 h, and supplied with a simultaneous lumbar constant rate infusion test at the end of the monitoring period. The pressure recordings were analysed using the Sensometrics Pressure Analyser. Various characteristics of the pressure curves were compared. RESULTS: The continuous ICP recordings were considered as normal (mean ICP<11.5 mmHg) in all 16 cases. The lumbar infusion test showed an apparently abnormal resistance to CSF outflow (Rout) (> or =12.0 mmHg/ml/min) in 12 of 16 cases. There was no relationship between lumbar Rout and mean ICP during sleep. We could not find any relationship between lumbar Rout and number of nightly ICP elevations of 1525 mmHg lasting 0.5 or 1 min. Neither resistance to CSF outflow (Rout) nor mean ICP during sleep was related to the ventricular size. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this prospective study revealed no significant relationship between resistance to CSF outflow (Rout) and the ICP profile in NPH cases. The results also suggest that caution should be made when predicting the ICP profile on the basis of measuring the lumbar CSF pressure for a few minutes duration.