Afroditi-Despina Lalou1,2, James S McTaggart3, Zofia H Czosnyka4, Matthew R Garnett5, Deepa Krishnakumar3, Marek Czosnyka4. 1. Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Division of Neurosurgery, University of Cambridge, Hills Road, Cambridge, CB20QQ, UK. adl43@cam.ac.uk. 2. Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Division of Neurosurgery, Cambridge University Hospital, Cambridge, UK. adl43@cam.ac.uk. 3. Department of Pediatric Neurology, Cambridge University Hospital, Cambridge, UK. 4. Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Division of Neurosurgery, University of Cambridge, Hills Road, Cambridge, CB20QQ, UK. 5. Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Division of Neurosurgery, Cambridge University Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE: There is a growing body of evidence highlighting the importance of comprehensive intracranial pressure (ICP) values in pseudotumor cerebri syndrome (PTCS). Due to the highly dynamic nature of ICP, several methods of ICP monitoring have been established, including the CSF infusion study. We have performed a retrospective review of the CSF dynamics measurements for all pediatric patients investigated for PTCS in our center and examined their diagnostic value compared with clinical classification. METHODS: We retrospectively recruited 31 patients under 16 years of age investigated for PTCS by CSF infusion test. We used the clinically provided Friedman classification 13/31 patients with definite PTCS (group A), 13/31 with probable PTCS (group B), and 5/31 not PTCS (group C), to compare CSF dynamics in the 3 groups. RESULTS: CSF pressure (CSFp) was significantly increased in group A (29.18 ± 7.72 mmHg) compared with B (15.31 ± 3.47 mmHg; p = 1.644e-05) and C (17.51 ± 5.87; p = 0.01368). The amplitude (AMP) was higher in the definite (2.18 ± 2.06 mmHg) than in group B (0.68 ± 0.37; p = 0.01382). There was no in either CSFp or AMP between groups B and C. No lower breakpoint of the AMP-P line was observed in group A but was present in 2/13 and 2/5 patients in groups B and C. In group A, sagittal sinus pressure (SSp) and elasticity were the only parameters above threshold (p = 4.2e-06 and p = 0.001953, respectively), In group B, only the elasticity was significantly higher than the threshold (p = 004257). Group C did not have any of the parameters raised. The AUC of CSFp, elasticity, and SSp for the 3 groups was 93.8% (84.8-100% CI). CONCLUSIONS: Monitoring of CSFp and its dynamics, besides providing a more precise methodology for measuring CSFp, could yield information on the dynamic parameters of CSFp that cannot be derived from CSFp as a number, accurately differentiating between the clinically and radiologically derived entities of PTCS.
PURPOSE: There is a growing body of evidence highlighting the importance of comprehensive intracranial pressure (ICP) values in pseudotumor cerebri syndrome (PTCS). Due to the highly dynamic nature of ICP, several methods of ICP monitoring have been established, including the CSF infusion study. We have performed a retrospective review of the CSF dynamics measurements for all pediatric patients investigated for PTCS in our center and examined their diagnostic value compared with clinical classification. METHODS: We retrospectively recruited 31 patients under 16 years of age investigated for PTCS by CSF infusion test. We used the clinically provided Friedman classification 13/31 patients with definite PTCS (group A), 13/31 with probable PTCS (group B), and 5/31 not PTCS (group C), to compare CSF dynamics in the 3 groups. RESULTS:CSF pressure (CSFp) was significantly increased in group A (29.18 ± 7.72 mmHg) compared with B (15.31 ± 3.47 mmHg; p = 1.644e-05) and C (17.51 ± 5.87; p = 0.01368). The amplitude (AMP) was higher in the definite (2.18 ± 2.06 mmHg) than in group B (0.68 ± 0.37; p = 0.01382). There was no in either CSFp or AMP between groups B and C. No lower breakpoint of the AMP-P line was observed in group A but was present in 2/13 and 2/5 patients in groups B and C. In group A, sagittal sinus pressure (SSp) and elasticity were the only parameters above threshold (p = 4.2e-06 and p = 0.001953, respectively), In group B, only the elasticity was significantly higher than the threshold (p = 004257). Group C did not have any of the parameters raised. The AUC of CSFp, elasticity, and SSp for the 3 groups was 93.8% (84.8-100% CI). CONCLUSIONS: Monitoring of CSFp and its dynamics, besides providing a more precise methodology for measuring CSFp, could yield information on the dynamic parameters of CSFp that cannot be derived from CSFp as a number, accurately differentiating between the clinically and radiologically derived entities of PTCS.
Authors: Martin U Schuhmann; Sandeep Sood; James P McAllister; Matthias Jaeger; Steven D Ham; Zofia Czosnyka; Marek Czosnyka Journal: Pediatr Neurosurg Date: 2008-05-15 Impact factor: 1.162
Authors: D M A Swallow; N Fellner; G V Varsos; M Czosnyka; P Smielewski; J D Pickard; Z Czosnyka Journal: Acta Neurol Scand Date: 2014-03-24 Impact factor: 3.209
Authors: Aku L Kaipainen; Erik Martoma; Tero Puustinen; Joona Tervonen; Henna-Kaisa Jyrkkänen; Jussi J Paterno; Anna Kotkansalo; Susanna Rantala; Ulla Vanhanen; Ville Leinonen; Soili M Lehto; Matti Iso-Mustajärvi; Antti-Pekka Elomaa; Sara Qvarlander; Terhi J Huuskonen Journal: Acta Neurochir (Wien) Date: 2021-08-27 Impact factor: 2.216