Jonathan Frederik Carlsen1,2, Tina Nørgaard Munch3,4,5, Adam Espe Hansen6,3, Steen Gregers Hasselbalch7, Alexander Malcolm Rykkje6. 1. Dept. of Radiology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark. Jonathan.frederik.carlsen@regionh.dk. 2. Dept. of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. Jonathan.frederik.carlsen@regionh.dk. 3. Dept. of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 4. Dept. of Neurosurgery, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark. 5. Department of Epidemiology Research, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark. 6. Dept. of Radiology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark. 7. Danish Dementia Research Centre, Dept. of Neurology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This systematic literature review aimed to identify brain computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) features that could be used to discriminate idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH) shunt responders from non-responders. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane were searched following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Only original research articles reporting preoperative CT and/or MRI features and iNPH shunt response evaluated by changes in gait, dementia, and urinary incontinence were included. Title and abstract screening and full-text article evaluation were done by two authors. Data on patient demographics and inclusion criteria, brain image evaluation, shunting methods, and shunt response evaluation were recorded. RESULTS: The search resulted in 1274 studies after removing duplicates. Twenty-seven studies were chosen for final review. Both structural (i.e., callosal angle, disproportionately enlarged subarachnoid space hydrocephalus (DESH), and temporal horn diameter) and physiological brain imaging (including aqueductal flow measurement and brain perfusion) had been examined. Fourteen out of 27 studies found no difference in any assessed imaging parameters between responders and non-responders, and none of the examined imaging parameters was repeatedly and consistently reported as significantly different between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: No brain imaging parameters were consistently and repeatedly reported as different between iNPH shunt responders and non-responders.
PURPOSE: This systematic literature review aimed to identify brain computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) features that could be used to discriminate idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH) shunt responders from non-responders. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane were searched following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Only original research articles reporting preoperative CT and/or MRI features and iNPH shunt response evaluated by changes in gait, dementia, and urinary incontinence were included. Title and abstract screening and full-text article evaluation were done by two authors. Data on patient demographics and inclusion criteria, brain image evaluation, shunting methods, and shunt response evaluation were recorded. RESULTS: The search resulted in 1274 studies after removing duplicates. Twenty-seven studies were chosen for final review. Both structural (i.e., callosal angle, disproportionately enlarged subarachnoid space hydrocephalus (DESH), and temporal horn diameter) and physiological brain imaging (including aqueductal flow measurement and brain perfusion) had been examined. Fourteen out of 27 studies found no difference in any assessed imaging parameters between responders and non-responders, and none of the examined imaging parameters was repeatedly and consistently reported as significantly different between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: No brain imaging parameters were consistently and repeatedly reported as different between iNPH shunt responders and non-responders.
Authors: Marta Picascia; Roberta Zangaglia; Sara Bernini; Brigida Minafra; Elena Sinforiani; Claudio Pacchetti Journal: Funct Neurol Date: 2015 Oct-Dec
Authors: Elizabeth A Sadowski; Atul B Shinagare; Hyesun Park; Olga R Brook; Rosemarie Forstner; Sumer K Wallace; Jeanne M Horowitz; Neil Horowitz; Marcia Javitt; Priyanka Jha; Aki Kido; Yulia Lakhman; Susanna I Lee; Lucia Manganaro; Katherine E Maturen; Stephanie Nougaret; Liina Poder; Gaiane M Rauch; Caroline Reinhold; Evis Sala; Isabelle Thomassin-Naggara; Herbert Alberto Vargas; Aradhana Venkatesan; Olivera Nikolic; Andrea G Rockall Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-11-30 Impact factor: 7.034