Lumbar cerebrospinal fluid pressure waves versus intracranial pressure waves in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus

2006 ◽  
Vol 20 (6) ◽  
pp. 407-414 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. K. Eide ◽  
A. Brean
Keyword(s):  
Cerebrospinal Fluid ◽  
Intracranial Pressure ◽  
Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus ◽  
Fluid Pressure ◽  
Normal Pressure ◽  
Idiopathic Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus ◽  
Cerebrospinal Fluid Pressure ◽  
Pressure Waves ◽  
Lumbar Cerebrospinal Fluid

scholarly journals Reference Values For Intracranial Pressure And Lumbar Cerebrospinal Fluid Pressure: A Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolas Hernandez Norager ◽  
Markus Harboe Olsen ◽  
Sarah Hornshoej Pedersen ◽  
Casper Schwartz Riedel ◽  
Marek Czosnyka ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cerebrospinal Fluid ◽  
Intracranial Pressure ◽  
Reference Values ◽  
Supine Position ◽  
Body Position ◽  
Fluid Pressure ◽  
Reference Intervals ◽  
Cerebrospinal Fluid Pressure ◽  
Lumbar Cerebrospinal Fluid

Abstract BackgroundAlthough widely used in the evaluation of the diseased, normal intracranial pressure and lumbar cerebrospinal fluid pressure remains sparsely documented. Intracranial pressure is different from lumbar cerebrospinal fluid pressure. In addition, intracranial pressure differs considerably according to body position of the patient. Despite this, the current reference interval are used indistinguishable for intracranial and lumbar cerebrospinal fluid pressure, and body position dependent reference intervals does not exist. In this study, we aim to establish these reference intervals.MethodA systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and Web of Sciences. Methodological quality was assessed using an amended version of the Joanna Briggs Quality Appraisal Checklist. Intracranial pressure and lumbar cerebrospinal fluid pressure were independently evaluated and subdivided into body positions. Quantitative data were presented with mean ± SD, and 90% reference intervals.ResultsThirty-six studies were included. Nine studies reported values for intracranial pressure, while 27 reported values for the lumbar cerebrospinal fluid pressure. Reference values for intracranial pressure were -5.9 to 8.3 mmHg in the upright position and 0.9 to 16.3 mmHg in supine position. Reference values for lumbar cerebrospinal fluid pressure were 7.2 to 16.8 mmHg and 5.7 to 15.5 mmHg in the lateral recumbent position and supine position, respectively. ConclusionsThis systematic review is the first to provide position-dependent reference values for intracranial pressure and lumbar cerebrospinal fluid pressure. Clinically applicable reference values for normal lumbar cerebrospinal fluid pressure was established, and were in accordance with previously used reference values. For intracranial pressure, this study strongly emphasizes the scarse normal material, and highlights the need for further research on the matter.

Normal pressure hydrocephalus. Influences on cerebral hemodynamic and cerebrospinal fluid pressure-chemical autoregulation

1984 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 195-203 ◽  
Author(s):  
John S. Meyer ◽  
Hisao Tachibana ◽  
Jeffrey P. Hardenberg ◽  
Richard E. Dowell ◽  
Yasuhisa Kitagawa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cerebrospinal Fluid ◽  
Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus ◽  
Fluid Pressure ◽  
Normal Pressure ◽  
Cerebrospinal Fluid Pressure ◽  
Cerebral Hemodynamic ◽  
Pressure Chemical

scholarly journals Reference values for intracranial pressure and lumbar cerebrospinal fluid pressure: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolas Hernandez Norager ◽  
Markus Harboe Olsen ◽  
Sarah Hornshoej Pedersen ◽  
Casper Schwartz Riedel ◽  
Marek Czosnyka ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cerebrospinal Fluid ◽  
Intracranial Pressure ◽  
Reference Values ◽  
Supine Position ◽  
Body Position ◽  
Fluid Pressure ◽  
The Body ◽  
Cerebrospinal Fluid Pressure ◽  
Lumbar Cerebrospinal Fluid

Abstract Background Although widely used in the evaluation of the diseased, normal intracranial pressure and lumbar cerebrospinal fluid pressure remain sparsely documented. Intracranial pressure is different from lumbar cerebrospinal fluid pressure. In addition, intracranial pressure differs considerably according to the body position of the patient. Despite this, the current reference values do not distinguish between intracranial and lumbar cerebrospinal fluid pressures, and body position-dependent reference values do not exist. In this study, we aim to establish these reference values. Method A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and Web of Sciences. Methodological quality was assessed using an amended version of the Joanna Briggs Quality Appraisal Checklist. Intracranial pressure and lumbar cerebrospinal fluid pressure were independently evaluated and subdivided into body positions. Quantitative data were presented with mean ± SD, and 90% reference intervals. Results Thirty-six studies were included. Nine studies reported values for intracranial pressure, while 27 reported values for the lumbar cerebrospinal fluid pressure. Reference values for intracranial pressure were −  5.9 to 8.3 mmHg in the upright position and 0.9 to 16.3 mmHg in the supine position. Reference values for lumbar cerebrospinal fluid pressure were 7.2 to 16.8 mmHg and 5.7 to 15.5 mmHg in the lateral recumbent position and supine position, respectively. Conclusions This systematic review is the first to provide position-dependent reference values for intracranial pressure and lumbar cerebrospinal fluid pressure. Clinically applicable reference values for normal lumbar cerebrospinal fluid pressure were established, and are in accordance with previously used reference values. For intracranial pressure, this study strongly emphasizes the scarcity of normal pressure measures, and highlights the need for further research on the matter.

scholarly journals Quantitative Analysis of Cerebrospinal Fluid Pressure Gradients in Healthy Volunteers and Patients with Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus

2015 ◽  
Vol 55 (8) ◽  
pp. 657-662 ◽  
Author(s):  
Naokazu HAYASHI ◽  
Mitsunori MATSUMAE ◽  
Satoshi YATSUSHIRO ◽  
Akihiro HIRAYAMA ◽  
Afnizanfaizal ABDULLAH ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cerebrospinal Fluid ◽  
Quantitative Analysis ◽  
Healthy Volunteers ◽  
Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus ◽  
Fluid Pressure ◽  
Normal Pressure ◽  
Cerebrospinal Fluid Pressure ◽  
Pressure Gradients

scholarly journals Evaluating the cerebrospinal fluid tap test with the Hellström iNPH scale for patients with idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Johanna Rydja ◽  
Andreas Eleftheriou ◽  
Fredrik Lundin
Keyword(s):  
Cerebrospinal Fluid ◽  
Scale Score ◽  
Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus ◽  
Postoperative Outcome ◽  
Normal Pressure ◽  
Idiopathic Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus ◽  
Urinary Continence ◽  
Predictive Values ◽  
Tap Test ◽  
Total Scale Score

Abstract Background The cerebrospinal fluid tap test (CSF TT) is used for selecting shunt surgery candidates among patients with idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH). We aimed to evaluate the predictive value of the CSF TT, by using the Hellström iNPH scale for shunted iNPH patients with a standardized method. Methods One hundred and sixteen shunt-operated iNPH patients were retrospectively included in this study. The gait and balance domains in the iNPH scale were used as outcome measures for the CSF TT and the total iNPH scale score as the postoperative outcome. A positive response to CSF TT was defined as a change of ≥ 5 points in the gait domain and ≥ 16 points in the balance domain. Differences between CSF TT responders and non-responders, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, accuracy, and correlations between changes from baseline to post CSF TT and from baseline to the postoperative follow-up, were calculated. Results In the CSF TT there were 63.8% responders in the gait domain and correspondingly 44.3% in the balance domain. CSF TT responders had a significantly better postoperative outcome in the total scale score (gait P ≤ 0.001, balance P ≤ 0.012) and gait CSF TT responders improved more in gait (P ≤ 0.001) and balance CSF TT responders in balance (P ≤ 0.001). No differences between CSF TT gait or balance responders could be found in neuropsychological or urinary continence assessments postoperatively. The sensitivity and specificity of the CSF TT and the outcome of the total iNPH scale score postoperatively were 68.1% and 52.0% for gait and 47.8% and 68.0% for balance, respectively. Conclusions The CSF TT, with the Hellström iNPH scale as the outcome measure, has clear limitations in predicting postoperative results. The gait domain may be used to predict outcomes for gait, but the balance domain is too insensitive.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document