| Literature DB >> 35477816 |
Giorgio Palandri1, Alessandro Carretta2,3, Emanuele La Corte1,4, Giulia Giannini4,5, Matteo Martinoni1, Paolo Mantovani1, Luca Albini-Riccioli6, Caterina Tonon4,7, Diego Mazzatenta4,8, Benjamin D Elder9, Alfredo Conti1,4.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The definition of chronic adult hydrocephalus encompasses different pathological entities with overlapping characteristics, including long-standing overt ventriculomegaly in adults (LOVA), late-onset idiopathic aqueductal stenosis (LIAS) and idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH). The aim of our study was to identify preoperative clinical and radiological features peculiar of these diseases providing some pathophysiology inferences on these forms of hydrocephalus.Entities:
Keywords: Differential diagnosis; Idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH); Late-onset idiopathic aqueductal stenosis (LIAS); Longstanding overt ventriculomegaly in adults (LOVA); Score
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35477816 PMCID: PMC9233635 DOI: 10.1007/s00701-022-05215-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Acta Neurochir (Wien) ISSN: 0001-6268 Impact factor: 2.816
Clinical-radiological criteria for the diagnosis of LOVA according to Ved et al. [42]
| 1.Clinical symptoms of hydrocephalus developing in adulthood—e.g. headaches, cognitive decline, imbalance, gait disturbance, psychological disturbance, visual deterioration/diplopia; |
| 2.Macrocephaly defined by head circumference > 98th percentile in adulthood (male 53.8 cm; female 52.9 cm); |
| 3.Overt tri-ventriculomegaly (lateral and third ventricles) on neuroimaging, with cortical sulcal effacement and/or destruction of the sella turcica as evidence of long-standing ventriculomegaly; |
| 4.Absence of a secondary cause for aqueductal stenosis in adulthood (e.g. previous meningitis, subarachnoid haemorrhage) |
Diagnostic score proposed in our study to differentiate patients with iNPH, potentially benefiting from a VPS, from patients with obstructive hydrocephalus (LOVA and LIAS) requiring ETV. The grades assigned for every feature are added up to obtain a single score
| Variable | Cut-off | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Age, y | ≤ 72 | 2 |
| > 73 | 0 | |
| Cranial circumference, cm | ≤ 56 | 0 |
| > 56 | 1 | |
| Evans’ index | ≤ 0.4 | 0 |
| > 0.4 | 1 | |
| Third ventricle width, mm | ≤ 18 | 0 |
| > 18 | 1 | |
| Sellar bone distortion | Yes | 2 |
| No | 0 | |
| Third ventricle floor bulging | Yes | 2 |
| No | 0 | |
| DESH | Yes | 0 |
| No | 2 | |
| Headache | Yes | 2 |
| No | 0 | |
| Nausea and vomit | Yes | 1 |
| No | 0 | |
| Gait disturbances | Yes | 0 |
| No | 1 | |
| Urinary incontinence | Yes | 0 |
| No | 1 | |
| Cognitive impairment | Yes | 0 |
| No | 1 |
Clinical features of the three cohorts. Data are expressed as n (%) or median (interquartile range)
| Variable | LOVA | LIAS | iNPH | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, y | 70 (64–72) | 59 (38–68.5) | 75.5 (73–78.75) | < 0.001a |
| Males, | 12 (66.7) | 12 (52.2) | 33 (51.6) | 0.16 |
| Cranial circumference, cm | 58.5 (57–59.75) | 57 (55.5–58.5) | 56 (55–58) | 0.001a |
| Headache, | 3 (16.7) | 7 (30.4) | 1 (1.6) | < 0.001a |
| Nausea and vomit, | 2 (11.1) | 2 (8.7) | 0 (0) | 0.02a |
| Gait disturbances, | 17 (94.4) | 17 (73.9) | 64 (100) | < 0.001a |
| Urinary incontinence, | 15 (83.3) | 10 (43.5) | 57 (89.1) | < 0.001a |
| Cognitive impairment, | 12 (66.7) | 9 (39.1) | 55 (87.5) | < 0.001a |
aStatistically significant p-value on univariate analysis
Comparison of the single cohorts with univariate and multivariate analysis according to the different radiological and clinical parameters. Only significant p-values and corresponding odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals at multivariate analysis have been reported
| LOVA vs. LIAS | LOVA vs.iNPH | LIAS vs.iNPH | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Univariate | Multivariate | Univariate | Multivariate | Univariate | Multivariate | |||
| OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | |||||||
| Age, y | 0.03 | - | - | < 0.001 | - | - | < 0.001 | - | - |
| Cranial circumference, cm | - | - | - | 0.001 | - | - | - | - | - |
| Evans’ index | 0.02 | - | - | < 0.001 | - | - | - | - | - |
| Third ventricle width, mm | 0.01 | 0.007 | 5.90 (1.46–23.8) | 0.002 | 0.001 | 22.13 (1.01–482.85) | - | - | - |
| Callosal angle, ° | 0.04 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Sellar bone distortion, | - | - | - | 0.002 | - | - | 0.02 | - | - |
| Third ventricle floor bulging, | - | - | - | 0.005 | - | - | < 0.001 | - | - |
| Enlarged cisterna magna, | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 1.67 × 1011 (7.64 × 109 − 3.64 × 1012) | < 0.001 | 0.002 | 6.41 (1.75–23.49) | 0.002 | - | - |
| DESH, | - | - | - | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 42.12 (5.95–298.05) | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 236.79 (13.21–4244.05) |
| Headache, | - | - | - | 0.04 | - | - | < 0.001 | - | - |
| Nausea and vomit, | - | - | - | 0.05 | - | - | - | - | - |
| Gait disturbances, | - | - | - | - | - | - | < 0.001 | - | - |
| Urinary incontinence, | 0.03 | - | - | - | - | - | < 0.001 | - | - |
| Cognitive impairment, | - | - | - | - | - | - | < 0.001 | - | - |
Fig. 1Incidences of categorical neuroradiological and clinical features in the three cohorts are reported. Significant differences according to univariate analysis are also underlined. *LOVA vs. LIAS. °LOVA vs iNPH. #LIAS vs iNPH
Radiological features of the three cohorts. Data are expressed as n (%) or median (interquartile range)
| Variable | LOVA | LIAS | iNPH | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tentorial angle, ° | 50 (48–56.5) | 48 (43–50) | 48.5 (42.25–56) | 0.72 |
| Evans’ index | 0.44 (0.4–0.48) | 0.38 (0.35–0.41) | 0.37 (0.34–0.4) | < 0.001a |
| Third ventricle width, mm | 18.5 (14.3–22.8) | 12 (11–16) | 14 (12–16) | 0.001a |
| Callosal angle, ° | 63 (51–80) | 87 (63–100) | 69 (59.25–76.75) | 0.02a |
| Sellar bone distortion, | 5 (27.8) | 4 (17.4) | 1 (1.6) | 0.01a |
| Empty sella, | 14 (77.8) | 13 (56.5) | 42 (65.6) | 0.33 |
| Third ventricle floor bulging, | 7 (38.9) | 14 (60.9) | 5 (7.8) | < 0.001a |
| Enlarged cisterna magna, | 18 (100) | 1 (4.3) | 25 (39.1) | < 0.001a |
| DESH, | 2 (11.1) | 1 (4.3) | 60 (93.8) | < 0.001a |
aStatistically significant p-value at univariate analysis
Fig. 2ROC curve describing diagnostic accuracy of the proposed score to differentiate between iNPH and no iNPH patients, AUC = 0.97, standard error = 0.017. Accuracy 94%. Best cutoff value: 3.5, J = 0.857, OR 188.5, 95% CI 36.166–982.469. Sensitivity: 95.1%. Specificity: 90.6%
Fig. 3T2-weighted MRI showing landmark features of LOVA in midsagittal (A), axial (B) and coronal (C) view. A Empty sella, patent aqueduct with turbulent flow and an enlarged cisterna magna are reported. B, C Concomitant severe supratentorial ventriculomegaly is observed. Evans Index: 0.47. Third ventricle width: 26 mm
Fig. 4T2-weighted MRI in midsagittal view of the three different types of adult hydrocephalus analysed in our study is compared. A LOVA, distorted and empty sella, bulging of third ventricle floor, turbulent flow through the aqueduct and an enlarged cisterna magna with upwards shifted cerebellar vermis are showed. B LIAS, CSF flow throughout the aqueduct, which is totally obstructed by a thin septum, is absent. C iNPH, with a patent aqueduct, and no abnormalities in the anatomy of sella turcica, third ventricle floor and cisterna magna