Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 2
  • Print publication year: 2014
  • Online publication date: February 2014

17 - Hydrocephalus shunts

from Section 4 - Treatment and outcomes

Summary

The recently updated Japanese guidelines draw attention to a specific MRI pattern of disproportionately enlarged subarachnoid space hydrocephalus (DESH), believed to be pathognomonic of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH). This chapter discusses why establishing the diagnosis of NPH remains a challenge fifty years after its classic description. The original diagnosis of NPH relied upon the presence of mild dementia, gait, and urinary difficulties (Hakim's triad) seen in association with ventriculomegaly on pneumo-encephalogram. More sensitive cognitive evaluation of iNPH patients requires specific tests for the assessment of subcortical frontal lobe deficits such as the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, Stroop test, Grooved Pegboard, Trail Making A and B Test, and digit span test. This diagnostic test provides information about cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) dynamics and predicts outcome. It consists in either removal of CSF accompanied by pre and post functional evaluation, or an infusion (bolus or continuous) test.

Related content

Powered by UNSILO

References

1. MomjianS, OwlerBK, CzosnykaZ, et al. Pattern of white matter regional cerebral blood flow and autoregulation in normal pressure hydrocephalus. Brain 2004;127(Pt 5):965–72.
2. MarmarouA, ShulmanK, RosendeRM. A non-linear analysis of the CSF system and intracranial pressure dynamics. J Neurosurg 1978;48:332–44.
3. EkstedtJ.CSF hydrodynamic studies in man. Normal hydrodynamic variables related to CSF pressure and flow. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1978;41:345–53.
4. Sainte-RoseC, HoovenMD, HirschJF. A new approach to the treatment of hydrocephalus. J Neurosurg 1987;66:213–26.
5. PetrellaG, CzosnykaM, SmielewskiP, et al. In vivo assessment of hydrocephalus shunt. Acta Neurol Scand 2009;120(5):317–23.
6. MarmarouA.A theoretical model and experimental evaluation of the cerebrospinal fluid system. Thesis, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA; 1973.
7. AvezaatCJJ, EijndhovenJHM.Cerebrospinal fluid pulse pressure and craniospinal dynamics. A theoretical, clinical and experimental study. Thesis, Jongbloed, The Hague; 1984.
8. SliwkaS. A clinical system for the evaluation of selected dynamic properties of the intracranial system. PhD thesis, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw; 1980 (in Polish).
9. CzosnykaZ, CzosnykaM, RichardsHK, PickardJD. Posture-related overdrainage: comparison of the performance of 10 hydrocephalus shunts in vitro. Neurosurgery 1998;42(2):327–33.
10. GjerrisF, SnorrasonE.The history of hydrocephalus. J Hist Neurosci 1992;1(4):285–312.
11. SoodS, KumarCR, JamousM, et al. Pathophysiological changes in cerebrovascular distensibility in patients undergoing chronic shunt therapy. J Neurosurg 2004;100(5 Suppl Pediatrics):447–53.
12. ChumasPD, ArmstrongDC, DrakeJM et al. Tonsillar herniation: the rule rather than exception after lumboperitoneal shunting in the paediatric population. J Neurosurg 1993;78:568–73.
13. CzosnykaZH, CieslickiK, CzosnykaM, PickardJD. Hydrocephalus shunts and waves of intracranial pressure. Med Biol Eng Comput 2005;43(1):71–7.
14. AschoffA, KremerP, BeneschC, et al. Overdrainage and shunt technology. Childs Nerv Syst 1995;11:193–202.
15. BrombyA, CzosnykaZ, AllinD, et al. Laboratory study on “intracranial hypotension” created by pumping the chamber of a hydrocephalus shunt. Cerebrospinal Fluid Res 2007;4:2.
16. LavinioA, HardingS, Van Der BoogaardF, et al. Magnetic field interactions in adjustable hydrocephalus shunts. Neurosurg Pediatr 2008;2(3):222–8.
17. SchuhmannMU, SoodS, McAllisterJP, et al. Value of overnight monitoring of intracranial pressure in hydrocephalic children. Pediatr Neurosurg 2008;44(4):269–79.
18. MayCH, AurischR, KornrumpfD, VogelS.Evaluation of shunt function in hydrocephalic patients with the radionuclide 99mTc-pertechnetate. Childs Nerv Syst 1999;15(5):239–44;
19. CaldarelliM, Di RoccoC, CelliniN, De SantisM.A technique for evaluation of CSF shunt patency using telethermography. Neuropediatrics 1981;12:303–7.
20. SamuelM, BurgeDM, MarchbanksRJ. Tympanic membrane displacement testing in regular assessment of intracranial pressure in eight children with shunted hydrocephalus. J Neurosurg 1998;88:983–95.
21. QuinnMW, PopleIK. Middle cerebral artery pulsatility in children with blocked cerebrospinal fluid shunts. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1992;55:325–7.
22. TaylorR, CzosnykaZ, CzosnykaM, PickardJD. A laboratory model of testing shunt performance after implantation. Br J Neurosurg 2002;16:30–5.
23. CzosnykaZH, CzosnykaM, PickardJD. Shunt testing in-vivo: a method based on the data from the UK shunt evaluation laboratory. Acta Neurochir Suppl 2002;81:27–30.
24. MalmJ, KristensenB, FagerlundM, KoskinenLO, EkstedtJ.Cerebrospinal fluid shunt dynamics in patients with idiopathic adult hydrocephalus syndrome. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1995;58(6):715–23.
25. CzosnykaZ, CzosnykaM, RichardsHK, PickardJD. Laboratory testing of hydrocephalus shunts – conclusion of the UK Shunt evaluation programme. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2002;144(6):525–38.
26. RichardsHK, SeeleyHM, PickardJD. Efficacy of antibiotic-impregnated shunt catheters in reducing shunt infection: data from the United Kingdom Shunt Registry. J Neurosurg Pediatr 2009;4(4):389–93.
27. ChungS, KimJK, WangKC, HanDC, ChangJK. Development of MEMS-based cerebrospinal fluid shunt system. Biomed Microdevices 2003;5(4):311–21.
28. EzkerraA, FernándezLJ, MayoraK, Ruano-LópezJM. SU8 diaphragm micropump with monolithically integrated cantilever check valves. Lab Chip 2011;11(19):3320–5.