Prognostic Utility of Disproportionately Enlarged Subarachnoid Space Hydrocephalus in Idiopathic Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus Treated with Ventriculoperitoneal Shunt Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

References

1. 1.↵
   2. Mori E,
   3. Ishikawa M,
   4. Kato T, et al

   . Guidelines for management of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: second edition. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 2012;52:775–809 doi:10.2176/nmc.52.775 pmid:23183074

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   2. Relkin N,
   3. Marmarou A,
   4. Klinge P, et al

   . Diagnosing idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus. Neurosurgery 2005;57:(3 Suppl):S4–16; discussion ii–v doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000168185.29659.C5 pmid:16160425

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   2. Kazui H,
   3. Miyajima M,
   4. Mori E, et al

   . Lumboperitoneal shunt surgery for idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (SINPHONI-2): an open-label randomised trial. Lancet Neurol 2015;14:585–94 doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(15)00046-0 pmid:25934242

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   2. Feletti A,
   3. d'Avella D,
   4. Wikkelsø C, et al

   . Ventriculoperitoneal shunt complications in the European idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus multicenter study. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown) 2019;17:97–102 doi:10.1093/ons/opy232 pmid:30169650

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   2. Nassar BR,
   3. Lippa CF

   . Idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: a review for general practitioners. Gerontol Geriatr Med 2016;2:2333721416643702 doi:10.1177/2333721416643702 pmid:28138494

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   2. Marmarou A,
   3. Young HF,
   4. Aygok GA, et al

   . Diagnosis and management of idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus: a prospective study in 151 patients. J Neurosurg 2005;102:987–97 doi:10.3171/jns.2005.102.6.0987 pmid:16028756

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
7. 7.↵
   2. Malm J,
   3. Kristensen B,
   4. Karlsson T, et al

   . The predictive value of cerebrospinal fluid dynamic tests in patients with the idiopathic adult hydrocephalus syndrome. Arch Neurol 1995;52:783–89 doi:10.1001/archneur.1995.00540320059013 pmid:7639630

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
8. 8.↵
   2. Marmarou A,
   3. Bergsneider M,
   4. Klinge P, et al

   . The value of supplemental prognostic tests for the preoperative assessment of idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus. Neurosurgery 2005;57(3 Suppl):S17–28; discussion ii–v doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000168184.01002.60 pmid:16160426

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   2. Wikkelsø C,
   3. Hellström P,
   4. Klinge PM, et al

   . The European iNPH Multicentre Study on the predictive values of resistance to CSF outflow and the CSF tap test in patients with idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2013;84:562–68 doi:10.1136/jnnp-2012-303314 pmid:23250963

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
10. 10.↵
    2. Williams MA,
    3. Malm J

    . Diagnosis and treatment of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. Continuum (Minneap Minn) 2016;22:579 doi:10.1212/CON.0000000000000305 pmid:27042909

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    2. Greenberg BM,
    3. Williams MA

    . Infectious complications of temporary spinal catheter insertion for diagnosis of adult hydrocephalus and idiopathic intracranial hypertension. Neurosurgery 2008;62:431–36 doi:10.1227/01.neu.0000316010.19012.35 pmid:18382321

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    2. Grahnke K,
    3. Jusue-Torres I,
    4. Szujewski C, et al

    . The quest for predicting sustained shunt response in normal-pressure hydrocephalus: an analysis of the callosal angle's utility. World Neurosurg 2018;115:e717–22 doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2018.04.150 pmid:29723726

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    2. Narita W,
    3. Nishio Y,
    4. Baba T, et al

    . High-convexity tightness predicts the shunt response in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2016;37:1831–37 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4838 pmid:27365329

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
14. 14.↵
    2. Otero-Rodríguez A,
    3. Sousa-Casasnovas P,
    4. Cruz-Terrón H, et al

    . Utility of radiologic variables to predict the result of lumbar infusion test in the diagnosis of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. World Neurosurg 2019;127:e957–64 doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2019.04.009 pmid:30965169

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    2. Virhammar J,
    3. Laurell K,
    4. Cesarini KG, et al

    . Preoperative prognostic value of MRI findings in 108 patients with idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014;35:2311–18 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4046 pmid:25012669

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
16. 16.↵
    2. Garcia-Armengol R,
    3. Domenech S,
    4. Botella-Campos C, et al

    . Comparison of elevated intracranial pressure pulse amplitude and disproportionately enlarged subarachnoid space (DESH) for prediction of surgical results in suspected idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2016;158:2207–13 doi:10.1007/s00701-016-2858-5 pmid:27349896

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    2. Hashimoto M,
    3. Ishikawa M,
    4. Mori E, et al

    . Diagnosis of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus is supported by MRI-based scheme: a prospective cohort study. Cerebrospinal Fluid Res 2010;7:18 doi:10.1186/1743-8454-7-18 pmid:21040519

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    2. Kitagaki H,
    3. Mori E,
    4. Ishii K, et al

    . CSF spaces in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: morphology and volumetry. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1998;19:1277–84 pmid:9726467

    PubMed
19. 19.↵
    2. Nakajima M,
    3. Yamada S,
    4. Miyajima M, et al

    . Guidelines for Management of Idiopathic Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: Endorsed by the Japanese Society of Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 2021;61:63–97 doi:10.2176/nmc.st.2020-0292 pmid:33455998

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    2. Agerskov S,
    3. Wallin M,
    4. Hellström P, et al

    . Absence of disproportionately enlarged subarachnoid space hydrocephalus, a sharp callosal angle, or other morphologic MRI markers should not be used to exclude patients with idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus from shunt surgery. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2019;40:74–79 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5910 pmid:30523139

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
21. 21.↵
    2. Craven CL,
    3. Toma AK,
    4. Mostafa T, et al

    . The predictive value of DESH for shunt responsiveness in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. J Clin Neurosci 2016;34:294–98 doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2016.09.004 pmid:27692614

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    2. Hong YJ,
    3. Kim MJ,
    4. Jeong E, et al

    . Preoperative biomarkers in patients with idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus showing a favorable shunt surgery outcome. J Neurol Sci 2018;387:21–26 doi:10.1016/j.jns.2018.01.017 pmid:29571865

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    2. Ishikawa M,
    3. Oowaki H,
    4. Takezawa M, et al

    . Disproportionately enlarged subarachnoid space hydrocephalus in idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus and its implication in pathogenesis. Acta Neurochir Suppl 2016;122:287–90 doi:10.1007/978-3-319-22533-3_57 pmid:27165923

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    2. Nishida N,
    3. Nagata N,
    4. Toda H, et al

    . Association of lipocalin-type prostaglandin D synthase with disproportionately enlarged subarachnoid-space in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. Fluids Barriers CNS 2014;11:9 doi:10.1186/2045-8118-11-9 pmid:24731502

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    2. Radovnický T,
    3. Adámek D,
    4. Derner M, et al

    . Fractional anisotropy in patients with disproportionately enlarged subarachnoid space hydrocephalus. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2016;158:1495–1500 doi:10.1007/s00701-016-2861-x pmid:27272943

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    2. Ahmed AK,
    3. Luciano M,
    4. Moghekar A, et al

    . Does the presence or absence of DESH predict outcomes in adult hydrocephalus? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2018;39:2022–26 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5820 pmid:30361433

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
27. 27.↵
    2. Takagi K,
    3. Watahiki R,
    4. Machida T, et al

    . Reliability and interobserver variability of Evans' index and disproportionately enlarged subarachnoid space hydrocephalus as diagnostic criteria for idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. Asian J Neurosurg 2020;15:107–12 doi:10.4103/ajns.AJNS_354_19 pmid:32181182

    CrossRefPubMed
28. 28.↵
    2. Liberati A,
    3. Altman DG,
    4. Tetzlaff J, et al

    . The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2009;339:b2700 doi:10.1136/bmj.b2700 pmid:19622552

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
29. 29.↵
    2. Miyazaki K,
    3. Ishii K,
    4. Hanaoka K, et al

    . The tight medial and high convexity subarachnoid spaces is the first finding of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus at the preclinical stage. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 2019;59:436–43 doi:10.2176/nmc.oa.2019-0133 pmid:31582642

    CrossRefPubMed
30. 30.↵
    2. Whiting PF,
    3. Rutjes AW,
    4. Westwood ME, et al

    . QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011;155:529–36 doi:10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009 pmid:22007046

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
31. 31.↵
    2. Higgins JP,
    3. Thomas J,
    4. Chandler J, et al.

    , eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 6.0 (updated July 2019). Cochrane Training, 2019. www.training.cochrane.org/handbook. Accessed October 15, 2020
32. 32.↵
    2. Suh CH,
    3. Park SH

    . Successful publication of systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating diagnostic test accuracy. Korean J Radiol 2016;17:5–6 doi:10.3348/kjr.2016.17.1.5 pmid:26798211

    CrossRefPubMed
33. 33.↵
    2. Devillé WL,
    3. Buntinx F,
    4. Bouter LM, et al

    . Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines. BMC Med Res Methodol 2002;2:9 doi:10.1186/1471-2288-2-9 pmid:12097142

    CrossRefPubMed
34. 34.↵
    2. Deeks JJ,
    3. Macaskill P,
    4. Irwig L

    . The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58:882–93 doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.01.016 pmid:16085191

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
35. 35.↵
    2. Yamada S,
    3. Ishikawa M,
    4. Yamamoto K

    . Optimal diagnostic indices for idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus based on the 3D quantitative volumetric analysis for the cerebral ventricle and subarachnoid space. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015;36:2262–69 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4440 pmid:26359148

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
36. 36.↵
    2. Shinoda N,
    3. Hirai O,
    4. Hori S, et al

    . Utility of MRI-based disproportionately enlarged subarachnoid space hydrocephalus scoring for predicting prognosis after surgery for idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: clinical research. J Neurosurg 2017;127:1436–42 doi:10.3171/2016.9.JNS161080 pmid:28156249

    CrossRefPubMed
37. 37.↵
    2. Engel D,
    3. Adib S,
    4. Schuhmann M, et al

    . Paradigm-shift: radiological changes in the asymptomatic iNPH-patient to be: an observational study. Fluids Barriers CNS 2018;15:1–7 doi:10.1186/s12987-017-0087-9 pmid:29307307

    CrossRefPubMed
38. 38.↵
    2. Mihalj M,
    3. Dolić K,
    4. Kolić K, et al

    . CSF tap test—obsolete or appropriate test for predicting shunt responsiveness? A systemic review. J Neurol Sci 2016;362:78–84 doi:10.1016/j.jns.2016.01.028 pmid:26944123

    CrossRefPubMed
39. 39.↵
    2. Benedetto N,
    3. Gambacciani C,
    4. Aquila F, et al

    . A new quantitative method to assess disproportionately enlarged subarachnoid space (DESH) in patients with possible idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: the SILVER index. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2017;158:27–32 doi:10.1016/j.clineuro.2017.04.015 pmid:28448824

    CrossRefPubMed
40. 40.↵
    2. Grasso G,
    3. Torregrossa F,
    4. Leone L, et al

    . Long-term efficacy of shunt therapy in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. World Neurosurg 2019;129:e458–63 doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2019.05.183 pmid:31154105

    CrossRefPubMed
41. 41.↵
    2. Wu EM,
    3. El Ahmadieh TY,
    4. Kafka B, et al

    . Ventriculoperitoneal shunt outcomes of normal pressure hydrocephalus: a case series of 116 patients. Cureus 2019;11:e4170 doi:10.7759/cureus.4170 pmid:31093469

    CrossRefPubMed