| Literature DB >> 36127965 |
Sana Zafar1, Venkatesh Panthangi1, Adrienne R Cyril Kurupp2, Anjumol Raju2, Gaurav Luthra1, Mahrukh Shahbaz1, Halah Almatooq3, Paul Foucambert1, Faith D Esbrand1, Safeera Khan1.
Abstract
Pseudotumor cerebri syndrome (PTCS)/idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) is a clinical presentation appertaining to signs/symptoms of raised intracranial pressure, like headache and papilledema. It is an uncommon but clinically significant cause of morbidity such as permanent vision loss. It is crucial to understand if idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) is on the rise in adolescents, it is probably due to the rising prevalence of obesity worldwide. Our study aimed to find an association between obesity and IIH in adolescents. We utilized Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis 2020 (PRISMA) guidelines to run this systematic review. Many publications related to the topic in the discussion were scrutinized through a comprehensive database search. We filtered them down to a final count of 10 articles after utilizing our inclusion/exclusion criteria and assessing the quality of work. In these final papers, we identified several possibilities to explain the link between obesity and IIH in adolescents. Overweight and obese adolescents were found to have a significantly increased risk of IIH development, with a more severe clinical picture seen in morbidly obese female patients.Entities:
Keywords: adolescent obesity; headache; idiopathic intracranial hypertension; lumbar puncture; obesity; overweight; papilledema; pseudotumor cerebri; ptcs; vision loss
Year: 2022 PMID: 36127965 PMCID: PMC9477550 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.28071
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cureus ISSN: 2168-8184
Figure 1Weight properties
BMI: body mass index. Figure created by Sana Zafar.
MeSH query strings
MeSH: Medical Subject Headings. Table created by Sana Zafar.
| Statement 1 | Statement 2 | Statement 3 |
| (“Obesity/cerebrospinal fluid”[Mesh] OR “Obesity/complications”[Mesh] OR “Obesity/diagnosis”[Mesh] OR “Obesity/etiology”[Mesh] OR “Obesity/metabolism”[Mesh] OR “Obesity/physiopathology”[Mesh]) | (“Pseudotumor Cerebri/anatomy and histology”[Mesh] OR “Pseudotumor Cerebri/cerebrospinal fluid”[Mesh] OR “Pseudotumor Cerebri/classification”[Mesh] OR “Pseudotumor Cerebri/diagnosis”[Mesh] OR “Pseudotumor Cerebri/etiology”[Mesh] OR “Pseudotumor Cerebri/physiopathology”[Mesh]) | (“Adolescent/complications”[Mesh] OR “Adolescent/diagnosis”[Mesh] OR “Adolescent/etiology”[Mesh] OR “Adolescent/growth and development”[Mesh] OR “Adolescent/metabolism”[Mesh]) |
Figure 2PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for systematic review
PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis, PMC: PubMed Central.
Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklist for case report
Adapted from Ybarra et al. 2020 [20].
| Study | Ybarra et al. 2020 [ |
| 1. Were the patient's demographic characteristics clearly described? | Yes |
| 2. Was the patient's history clearly explained and presented as a timeline? | Yes |
| 3. Was the current presenting clinical condition of the patient clearly explained? | Yes |
| 4. Were diagnostic tests/assessment methods and the results clearly described? | Yes |
| 5. Was the intervention(s)/treatment procedure(s) clearly described? | Yes |
| 6. Was the post-intervention clinical condition elaborated? | Yes |
| 7. Were adverse events (harms)/unanticipated events identified and described? | No |
| 8. Does the case report advise takeaway lessons? | No |
| 9. Quality evaluation? | Include |
Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklist for cohort studies
Adapted from Per et al., 2013 [23]; Tibussek et al., 2013 [24]; Değerliyurt et al., 2014 [25]; Bursztyn et al., 2014 [26]; Sheldon et al., 2016 [27]; Matthews et al., 2017 [28]; and Mahajnah et al., 2020 [29]. N/A: not applicable.
| Per et al. 2013 [ | Tibussek et al. 2013 [ | Değerliyurt et al. 2014 [ | Bursztyn et al. 2014 [ | Sheldon et al. 2016 [ | Matthews et al. 2017 [ | Mahajnah et al. 2020 [ | |
| 1. Were the two groups similar and recruited from the same population? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 2. Were the exposures measured similarly to assign people to both exposed and unexposed groups? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 3. Was the exposure measured in a standard, reliable and valid way? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 4. Were confounding factors identified? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 5. Were strategies to deal with confounding factors stated? | Unclear | Yes | Unclear | Unclear | Yes | Unclear | Yes |
| 6. Were the groups/participants free of the outcome at the start of the study (or at the moment of exposure)? | No | No | No | No | No | No | No |
| 7. Were the outcomes measured in a reliable and valid way? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 8. Was the follow-up time reported sufficient to be long enough for outcomes to occur? | Yes | Yes | Yes | N/A | N/A | Yes | N/A |
| 9. Was follow-up complete, and if not, were the reasons for loss to follow-up described and explored? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 10. Were strategies to address incomplete follow-up utilized? | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| 11. Was appropriate statistical analysis used? | Unclear | Unclear | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Unclear |
| 12. Quality evaluation | Include | Include | Include | Include | Include | Include | Include |
Figure 3Data showing the distribution of obese female/male adolescents with IIH as compared to non-obese female/male adolescents with IIH
IIH: idiopathic intracranial hypertension. Figure created by Sana Zafar.
The association of obesity and idiopathic intracranial hypertension in adolescents
IIH: idiopathic intracranial hypertension, PTCS: pseudotumor cerebri syndrome. Ybarra et al., 2020 [20]; Brara et al., 2012 [21]; Stiebel-Kalish et al., 2014 [22]; Per et al., 2013 [23]; Tibussek et al., 2013 [24]; Değerliyurt et al., 2014 [25], Bursztyn et al., 2014 [26]; Sheldon et al., 2016 [27]; Matthews et al., 2017 [28]; and Mahajnah et al., 2020 [29].
| Author and Year of Publication | Purpose of Study | Number of Patients/Study | Type of Study | Conclusion |
| Ybarra et al. (2020) [ | To describe a case of an obese male with IIH treated with bariatric surgery | 1 | Case report | Bariatric surgery may be a valid treatment for morbidly obese refractory cases. |
| Brara et al. (2012) [ | To estimate the magnitude of association between overweight, moderate, and extreme childhood obesity and IIH | 66 | Cross-sectional study | Childhood obesity is strongly associated with IIH, with extreme childhood obesity likely to lead to increased morbidity from IIH. |
| Stiebel-Kalish et al. (2014) [ | To examine the hypothesis that being overweight or obese in adolescents increases the risk of IIH | 29 | Case-control study | A fivefold increase in the risk of IIH was noted in obese children compared to healthy controls. |
| Per et al. (2013) [ | To estimate the etiological and clinical features of PTCS in children and adolescents | 30 | Retrospective study | PTCS is an avoidable cause of visual loss in children and adolescents; thus, early detection and management are important. |
| Tibussek et al. (2013) [ | It aims to raise awareness of PTCS in pediatrics and contribute to a better understanding of age-related characteristics | 29 | Prospective study | Pediatric and adolescent PTCS is as frequent as in the general population. |
| Değerliyurt et al. (2014) [ | To evaluate the clinical picture and etiological factors in adolescents | 16 | Retrospective study | PTCS is seen in prepubertal as well as after puberty, with increased incidence in obese adolescents. |
| Bursztyn et al. (2014) [ | To understand if, like obesity, the incidence of IIH in children is rising? And it is related to that increase | 9 | Retrospective study | The result was a decreased incidence of IIH related to obesity which can be attributable to early diagnosis and intervention. |
| Sheldon et al. (2016) [ | To study characteristics of diagnosis of IIH in adolescents | 45 | Retrospective study | Adolescents with IIH with increasing age are more likely to be obese. |
| Matthews et al. (2017) [ | To investigate the epidemiology, clinical profile, and risk factors of PTCS in adolescents | 152 | Prospective study | Obesity is associated with IIH, and weight loss is central to the prevention of IIH. |
| Mahajnah et al. (2020) [ | To study risk factors and clinical presentation of IIH | 22 | Retrospective survey | Risk factors in adolescents include obesity and female preponderance as in adults. |
Diagnostic criteria for pediatric PTCS
Adapted from Friedman and Jacobson, 2004 [38]. PTCS: pseudotumor cerebri syndrome, MRI: magnetic resonance imaging, CT: computed tomography, H2O: water, CSF: cerebrospinal fluid, WBC: white blood cells, MR venography: magnetic resonance venography, mm3: cubic millimeter, mg/dl: milligrams per deciliter. Table created by Sana Zafar.
| Modified Dandy Criteria for Diagnosis of PTCS | Diagnostic Criteria Adapted From Rangwala for Pediatric PTCS |
| Signs and symptoms of increased intracranial pressure. | Prepubertal |
| No localizing findings on neurological examination. | Symptoms or signs of generalized intracranial hypertension or papilledema. Normal mental status |
| Normal MRI/CT brain scans with no central venous sinus thrombosis evidence. | Documented elevated intracranial pressure. Neonates: >76 mmH2O. Age less than eight with papilledema: >180 mmH2O |
| Increased intracranial pressure over 250 mmH2O and normal cerebrospinal fluid composition. | Eight years old or above, or less than eight years old without papilledema: >250 mmH2O |
| No other identified cause of intracranial hypertension | Normal CSF composition except in neonates who may have up to 32 WBC/mm3 and protein as high as 150 mg/dl |
| No evidence of mass, structural, or vascular lesion or hydrocephalus on MRI, with and without contrast and MR venography. Narrowing of the transverse sinuses is allowed | |
| Cranial nerve palsies are allowed if they are of no other identifiable etiology and improve with a reduction in cerebrospinal fluid pressure or the resolution of other signs and symptoms of intracranial hypertension | |
| No other identified cause of intracranial hypertension |
Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklist for a cross-sectional study
Adapted from Brara et al. 2012 [21].
| Study | Brara et al. 2012 [ |
| 1. Were the inclusion criteria in the sample clearly defined? | Yes |
| 2. Were the study subjects and the setting described in detail? | Yes |
| 3. Was the exposure measured in a reliable and valid way? | Yes |
| 4. Were standard criteria used for the measurement of the condition? | Yes |
| 5. Were confounding factors identified? | Yes |
| 6. Were strategies for dealing with confounding factors stated? | Yes |
| 7. Were the outcomes measured in a reliable and valid way? | Yes |
| 8. Was appropriate statistical analysis used? | Yes |
| 9. Overall evaluation? | Include |
Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklist for case-control studies
Adapted from Stiebel-Kalish et al. 2014 [22].
| Study | Stiebel-Kalish et al. 2014 [ |
| 1. Were both the groups comparable other than the presence of disease in cases vs the absence of disease in controls? | Yes |
| 2. Were cases and controls matched appropriately? | Yes |
| 3. Were the same criteria used to identify cases and controls? | Yes |
| 4. Was exposure measured in a standard, reliable and valid way? | Yes |
| 5. Was exposure measured the same way for cases and controls? | Yes |
| 6. Were confounding factors identified? | Unclear |
| 7. Were strategies for dealing with confounding factors stated? | Unclear |
| 8. Were outcomes assessed in a standard, reliable and valid way for cases and controls? | Yes |
| 9. Was the exposure period long enough to be meaningful? | Yes |
| 10. Was appropriate statistical analysis used? | Yes |
| 11. Quality appraisal | Include |