Prediction of Surgical Outcomes in Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus by MR Elastography

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Graff-Radford J,
   2. Gunter JL,
   3. Jones DT, et al

   . Cerebrospinal fluid dynamics disorders: relationship to Alzheimer biomarkers and cognition. Neurology 2019;93:e2237–46 doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000008616 pmid:31719134

   CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
2. 2.↵
   1. Adams RD,
   2. Fisher CM,
   3. Hakim S, et al

   . Symptomatic occult hydrocephalus with “normal” cerebrospinal-fluid pressure: a treatable syndrome. N Engl J Med 1965;273:117–26 doi:10.1056/NEJM196507152730301 pmid:14303656

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
3. 3.↵
   1. Andersson J,
   2. Rosell M,
   3. Kockum K, et al

   . Prevalence of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: a prospective, population-based study. PLoS One 2019;14:e0217705 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0217705 pmid:31141553

   CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
4. 4.↵
   1. Borzage M,
   2. Saunders A,
   3. Hughes J, et al

   . The first examination of diagnostic performance of automated measurement of the callosal angle in 1856 elderly patients and volunteers indicates that 12.4% of exams met the criteria for possible normal pressure hydrocephalus. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2021;42:1942–48 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A7294 pmid:34620589

   Abstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
5. 5.↵
   1. Molde K,
   2. Söderström L,
   3. Laurell K

   . Parkinsonian symptoms in normal pressure hydrocephalus: a population-based study. J Neurol 2017;264:2141–48 doi:10.1007/s00415-017-8598-5 pmid:28879446

   CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
6. 6.↵
   1. Wallenstein MB,
   2. McKhann GM

   . Salomón Hakim and the discovery of normal-pressure hydrocephalus. Neurosurgery 2010;67:155–59; discussion 159 doi:10.1227/01.neu.0000370058.12120.0e pmid:20568668

   CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
7. 7.↵
   1. Toma AK,
   2. Papadopoulos MC,
   3. Stapleton S, et al

   . Systematic review of the outcome of shunt surgery in idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2013;155:1977–80 doi:10.1007/s00701-013-1835-5 pmid:23975646

   CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
8. 8.↵
   1. Wu EM,
   2. El Ahmadieh TY,
   3. 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

   CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
9. 9.↵
   1. Kaye JA,
   2. Grady CL,
   3. Haxby JV, et al

   . Plasticity in the aging brain: reversibility of anatomic, metabolic, and cognitive deficits in normal-pressure hydrocephalus following shunt surgery. Arch Neurol 1990;47:1336–41 doi:10.1001/archneur.1990.00530120082014 pmid:2252451

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
10. 10.↵
    1. Goodman M,
    2. Meyer WJ

    . Dementia reversal in post-shunt normal pressure hydrocephalus predicted by neuropsychological assessment. J Am Geriatr Soc 2001;49:685–86 doi:10.1046/j.1532-5415.2001.49138.x pmid:11380772

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
11. 11.↵
    1. Fisher CM

    . Reversal of normal pressure hydrocephalus symptoms by subdural collections. Can J Neurol Sci 2002;29:171–74 pmid:12035840

    PubMedGoogle Scholar
12. 12.↵
    1. Mihalj M,
    2. Dolić K,
    3. Kolić K, et al

    . CSF tap test: obsolete or appropriate test for predicting shunt responsiveness? A systemic review. J Neurol Sci 2016;370:157–84 doi:10.1016/j.jns.2016.01.028 pmid:26944123

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
13. 13.↵
    1. Thavarajasingam SG,
    2. El-Khatib M,
    3. Rea M, et al

    . Clinical predictors of shunt response in the diagnosis and treatment of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2021;163:2641–72 doi:10.1007/s00701-021-04922-z pmid:34235589

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
14. 14.↵
    1. Haan J,
    2. Thomeer RT

    . Predictive value of temporary external lumbar drainage in normal pressure hydrocephalus. Neurosurgery 1988;22:388–91 doi:10.1227/00006123-198802000-00020 pmid:3352890

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
15. 15.↵
    1. Walchenbach R,
    2. Geiger E,
    3. Thomeer RT, et al

    . The value of temporary external lumbar CSF drainage in predicting the outcome of shunting on normal pressure hydrocephalus. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2002;72:503–06 doi:10.1136/jnnp.72.4.503 pmid:11909911

    Abstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
16. 16.↵
    1. El Ahmadieh TY,
    2. Wu EM,
    3. Kafka B, et al

    . Lumbar drain trial outcomes of normal pressure hydrocephalus: a single-center experience of 254 patients. J Neurosurg 2019;132:306–12 doi:10.3171/2018.8.JNS181059 pmid:30611143

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
17. 17.↵
    1. Rebuck JA,
    2. Murry KR,
    3. Rhoney DH, et al

    . Infection related to intracranial pressure monitors in adults: analysis of risk factors and antibiotic prophylaxis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2000;69:381–84 doi:10.1136/jnnp.69.3.381 pmid:10945814

    Abstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
18. 18.↵
    1. Thavarajasingam SG,
    2. El-Khatib M,
    3. Vemulapalli K, et al

    . Radiological predictors of shunt response in the diagnosis and treatment of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2023;165:369–419 doi:10.1007/s00701-022-05402-8 pmid:36435931

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
19. 19.↵
    1. Mládek A,
    2. Gerla V,
    3. Skalický P, et al

    . Prediction of shunt responsiveness in suspected patients with normal pressure hydrocephalus using the lumbar infusion test: a machine learning approach. Neurosurgery 2022;90:407–18 doi:10.1227/NEU.0000000000001838 pmid:35080523

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
20. 20.↵
    1. Murphy MC,
    2. Cogswell PM,
    3. Trzasko JD, et al

    . Identification of normal pressure hydrocephalus by disease-specific patterns of brain stiffness and damping ratio. Invest Radiol 2020;55:200–08 doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000630 pmid:32058331

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
21. 21.↵
    1. Muthupillai R,
    2. Lomas DJ,
    3. Rossman PJ, et al

    . Magnetic resonance elastography by direct visualization of propagating acoustic strain waves. Science 1995;269:1854–57 doi:10.1126/science.7569924 pmid:7569924

    Abstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
22. 22.↵
    1. Streitberger KJ,
    2. Wiener E,
    3. Hoffmann J, et al

    . In vivo viscoelastic properties of the brain in normal pressure hydrocephalus. NMR Biomed 2011;24:385–92 doi:10.1002/nbm.1602 pmid:20931563

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
23. 23.↵
    1. Fattahi N,
    2. Arani A,
    3. Perry A, et al

    . MR elastography demonstrates increased brain stiffness in normal pressure hydrocephalus. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2016;37:462–67 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4560 pmid:26542235

    Abstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
24. 24.↵
    1. Perry A,
    2. Graffeo CS,
    3. Fattahi N, et al

    . Clinical correlation of abnormal findings on magnetic resonance elastography in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. World Neurosurg 2017;99:695–700.e691 doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2016.12.121 pmid:28063896

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
25. 25.↵
    1. Kitagaki H,
    2. Mori E,
    3. Ishii K, et al

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

    PubMedGoogle Scholar
26. 26.↵
    1. Oi S,
    2. Shimoda M,
    3. Shibata M, et al

    . Pathophysiology of long-standing overt ventriculomegaly in adults. J Neurosurg 2000;92:933–40 doi:10.3171/jns.2000.92.6.0933 pmid:10839252

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
27. 27.↵
    1. Kageyama H,
    2. Miyajima M,
    3. Ogino I, et al

    . Panventriculomegaly with a wide foramen of Magendie and large cisterna magna. J Neurosurg 2016;124:1858–66 doi:10.3171/2015.6.JNS15162 pmid:26636390

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
28. 28.↵
    1. Arani A,
    2. Murphy MC,
    3. Glaser KJ, et al

    . Measuring the effects of aging and sex on regional brain stiffness with MR elastography in healthy older adults. Neuroimage 2015;111:59–64 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.02.016 pmid:25698157

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
29. 29.↵
    1. Foo TKF,
    2. Laskaris E,
    3. Vermilyea M, et al

    . Lightweight, compact, and high-performance 3T MR system for imaging the brain and extremities. Magn Reson Med 2018;80:2232–45 doi:10.1002/mrm.27175 pmid:29536587

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
30. 30.↵
    1. Mori E,
    2. Ishikawa M,
    3. Kato T, et al

    ; Japanese Society of Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus. 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

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
31. 31.↵
    1. Miskin N,
    2. Patel H,
    3. Franceschi AM, et al

    ; Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. Diagnosis of normal-pressure hydrocephalus: use of traditional measures in the era of volumetric MR imaging. Radiology 2017;285:197–205 doi:10.1148/radiol.2017161216 pmid:28498794

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
32. 32.↵
    1. Scott JM,
    2. Pavuluri K,
    3. Trzasko JD, et al

    . Impact of material homogeneity assumption on cortical stiffness estimates by MR elastography. Magn Reson Med 2022;88:916–29 doi:10.1002/mrm.29226 pmid:35381121

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
33. 33.↵
    1. Ashburner J,
    2. Friston KJ

    . Unified segmentation. Neuroimage 2005;26:839–51 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.02.018 pmid:15955494

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
34. 34.↵
    1. Storey JD

    . A direct approach to false discovery rates. J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol 2002;64:479–98 doi:10.1111/1467-9868.00346

    CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35. 35.↵
    1. Narita W,
    2. Nishio Y,
    3. 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 TextGoogle Scholar
36. 36.↵
    1. Hashimoto M,
    2. Ishikawa M,
    3. 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

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
37. 37.↵
    1. Kazui H,
    2. Miyajima M,
    3. Mori E, et al

    ; SINPHONI-2 Investigators. 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

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
38. 38.↵
    1. Craven CL,
    2. Toma AK,
    3. 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

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
39. 39.↵
    1. Ahmed AK,
    2. Luciano M,
    3. 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 TextGoogle Scholar
40. 40.↵
    1. Quattrone A,
    2. Sarica A,
    3. La Torre D, et al

    . Progressive supranuclear palsy with marked ventricular dilatation mimicking normal pressure hydrocephalus. Neurol Sci 2022;43:1783–90 doi:10.1007/s10072-021-05594-4 pmid:34499242

    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar