BACKGROUND: The workup for idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (INPH) can be difficult to coordinate, and determining appropriate patients for ventriculoperitoneal shunting can be challenging. Therefore, we hypothesized that implementing a formalized protocol can improve patient selection for a shunt. In conjunction with neurology and neurosurgery, we instituted a standardized means of assessing patients whose presentation is concerning for INPH and compared their workup with similar patients seen without the Protocol (i.e., preprotocol [PP]) regarding baseline characteristics, assessment, and outcomes. METHODS: Twenty-six PP patients were compared with 40 Protocol patients on measures, including baseline deficits, workup, neurosurgical evaluation, and response to shunt. RESULTS: Average age was similar between groups, and the percentage of patients who had a decline in gait, cognition, and/or incontinence was not statistically different (p > 0.05). Significantly more Protocol patients underwent high-volume lumbar puncture (HVLP; 97.5%; PP, 61.5%; p < 0.001) and received formalized gait assessment with the Gait Scale (90%; PP, 0%, p < 0.001) and standardized cognitive testing (95%; PP, 38.5%; p < 0.001). Significantly more Protocol patients had no improvement after HVLP (33.3%; PP, 6.25%; p < 0.045); subsequently, fewer got shunted (57.5%; PP, 84.6%; p < 0.030). More Protocol patients who were shunted reported gait improvement (100%; PP, 72.7%; p = 0.009), although there was no difference in cognition (59.2%; PP, 82.6%; p = 0.108) or incontinence (18.2%; PP, 39.1%; p = 0.189). CONCLUSIONS: Implementing an INPH Protocol leads to standardized and more extensive assessment and better patient selection for and subsequent outcomes from shunting, specifically regarding gait.
BACKGROUND: The workup for idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (INPH) can be difficult to coordinate, and determining appropriate patients for ventriculoperitoneal shunting can be challenging. Therefore, we hypothesized that implementing a formalized protocol can improve patient selection for a shunt. In conjunction with neurology and neurosurgery, we instituted a standardized means of assessing patients whose presentation is concerning for INPH and compared their workup with similar patients seen without the Protocol (i.e., preprotocol [PP]) regarding baseline characteristics, assessment, and outcomes. METHODS: Twenty-six PP patients were compared with 40 Protocol patients on measures, including baseline deficits, workup, neurosurgical evaluation, and response to shunt. RESULTS: Average age was similar between groups, and the percentage of patients who had a decline in gait, cognition, and/or incontinence was not statistically different (p > 0.05). Significantly more Protocol patients underwent high-volume lumbar puncture (HVLP; 97.5%; PP, 61.5%; p < 0.001) and received formalized gait assessment with the Gait Scale (90%; PP, 0%, p < 0.001) and standardized cognitive testing (95%; PP, 38.5%; p < 0.001). Significantly more Protocol patients had no improvement after HVLP (33.3%; PP, 6.25%; p < 0.045); subsequently, fewer got shunted (57.5%; PP, 84.6%; p < 0.030). More Protocol patients who were shunted reported gait improvement (100%; PP, 72.7%; p = 0.009), although there was no difference in cognition (59.2%; PP, 82.6%; p = 0.108) or incontinence (18.2%; PP, 39.1%; p = 0.189). CONCLUSIONS: Implementing an INPH Protocol leads to standardized and more extensive assessment and better patient selection for and subsequent outcomes from shunting, specifically regarding gait.
Authors: H Stolze; J P Kuhtz-Buschbeck; H Drücke; K Jöhnk; C Diercks; S Palmié; H M Mehdorn; M Illert; G Deuschl Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: John J Halperin; Roger Kurlan; Jason M Schwalb; Michael D Cusimano; Gary Gronseth; David Gloss Journal: Neurology Date: 2015-12-08 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Ziad S Nasreddine; Natalie A Phillips; Valérie Bédirian; Simon Charbonneau; Victor Whitehead; Isabelle Collin; Jeffrey L Cummings; Howard Chertkow Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Heather Katzen; Lisa D Ravdin; Stephanie Assuras; Roberto Heros; Michael Kaplitt; Theodore H Schwartz; Matthew Fink; Bonnie E Levin; Norman R Relkin Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: David Feick; Jennifer Sickmond; Li Liu; Philippe Metellus; Michael Williams; Daniele Rigamonti; Felicia Hill-Briggs Journal: J Rehabil Med Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 2.912