Objective: The intrathecal infusion test is a reliable method for diagnosing normal-pressure hydrocephalus (NPH). Methods: Between May 1982 and January 1997, we investigated 200 patients suspected of having NPH by carrying out an intrathecal infusion test with a constant-flow technique. The resistance to cerebrospinal fluid outflow in the intrathecal infusion test was the main criterion for grouping patients into those with NPH or those with cerebral atrophy. A further differentiation into early stage and advanced stage was made by measuring the compliance, this being the secondary criterion. Results: In 107 patients (54%), the diagnosis of NPH could be confirmed. Of these, 102 patients (95%) underwent a shunt operation. Graduation of NPH and cerebral atrophy following the results of the infusion test at an early stage and an advanced stage allows prognostic evaluations about the course of disease to be made. Patients with NPH at an early stage reported an improvement of their symptoms in the follow-up after a shunt operation in 65% of cases, while 50% of those with advanced-stage NPH reported improvement. Conclusion: The computer- aided infusion test allows a reliable differentiation between patients with NPH and those with cerebral atrophy.

Keywords:
Normal-pressure hydrocephalus, Intrathecal infusion test, Shunt operation, Resistance, Compliance
1.
Adams RD, Fischer CM, Hakim S, Ojemann RG, Sweet WH: Symptomatic occult hydrocephalus with normal cerebrospinal fluid pressure. N Engl J Med 1965;273:117–126.
2.
Hakim S, Adams RD: The special clinic problem of symptomatic hydrocephalus with normal cerebrospinal fluid pressure. J Neurol Sci 1965;2:307–327.
3.
Künzel B: Mathematisch-physikalische Interpretation der kraniospinalen Druckdynamik; Dissertation, Humboldt-Universität Berlin, 1993.
4.
Zeilinger FS, Reyer T, Meier U, Kintzel D: Clinical experiences with the dual-switch valve in patients with normal pressure hydrocephalus. Acta Neurochir Suppl 2000;76:559–562.
5.
Meier U, Michalik M, Reichmuth B: Computertomographie und Infusionstest als Simultanuntersuchung bei einem posttraumatischen Hydrocephalus. Psychiatr Neurol Med Psychol (Leipz) 1987;39:754–758.
6.
Meier U, Kiefer M, Bartels P: The ICP-dependency of resistance to cerebrospinal fluid outflow: A new mathematical method for CSF-parameter calculation in a model with H-Tx rats. J Clin Neurosci, in press.
7.
Meier U, Zeilinger F, Reyer T, Kintzel D: Clinical experiences with the dual-switch-valve in patients with normal pressure hydrocephalus; in: 11th European Congress of Neurosurgery, European Association of Neurosurgical Societies (EANS). Bologna, Monduzzi Editore, International Proceedings Division, 1999, pp 773–776.
8.
Meier U, Zeilinger FS, Schönherr B: Endoscopic ventriculostomy versus shunt operation in normal pressure hydrocephalus: Diagnostics and indication. Acta Neurochir Suppl 2000;76:563–566.
9.
Meier U, Kiefer M, Sprung C: Evaluation of the dual-switch-valve in patients with normal pressure hydrocephalus. J Neurosurg, in press.
10.
Meier U, Reichmuth B, Zeilinger FS, Lehmann R: The importance of xenon-computed tomography in the diagnosis of normal pressure hydrocephalus. Int J Neuroradiol 1996;2:77–83.
11.
Meier U, Zeilinger FS, Kintzel D: Diagnostic in normal pressure hydrocephalus. A mathematical model for determination of the ICP-dependent resistance and compliance. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 1999;141:941–948.
12.
Meier U, Zeilinger FS, Kintzel D: Signs, symptoms and course of disease in normal pressure hydrocephalus in relation to cerebral atrophy. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 1999;141:1039–1048.
13.
Tans JTJ, Poortvliet DJC: Comparison of lumbar and ventricular constant flow and bolus infusions in hydrocephalus; in Avezaat CJJ, Eijndhoven JHM, van Maas AIR, Tans JTJ (eds): Intracranial Pressure VII. Berlin, Springer, 1993, pp 749–752.
14.
Sachs L: Angewandte Statistik. Statistische Methoden und ihre Anwendung. Berlin, Springer, 1978.
15.
Marmarou A, Shulman K, LaMorgese J: Compartmental analysis of compliance and outflow resistance of the cerebrospinal fluid system. J Neurosurg 1975;43:523–534.
16.
Børgesen SE, Gjerris F, Schmidt J: Measurement of resistance to CSF outflow by subarachnoid perfusion; in Gjerris F, Børgesen SE, Sørensen PS (eds): Outflow of Cerebrospinal Fluid; Alfred Benzon Symposium 27. Copenhagen, Munksgaard, 1989, pp 121–129.
17.
Tychmanowicz K, Czernicki Z, Pawlowski G, Stepinska G: ICP dependent changes of CSF outflow resistance. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 1992;117:44–47.
18.
Portnoy HD, Croissant PD: A practical method for measuring hydrodynamics of cerebrospinal fluid. Surg Neurol 1976;5:273–277.
19.
Shapiro K, Fried A: Shunt dependent hydrocephalus: Pressure volume characterization and altered CSF outflow resistance; in Miller JD, Teasdale GM, Rowan JO, Galbraith SL, Mendelow AD (eds): Intracranial Pressure VI. Berlin, Springer, 1986, pp 118–122.
20.
Love JA, Ekstedt J, Fridén H: Labile sagittal sinus pressures in the cat; in Miller JD, Teasdale GM, Rowan JO, Galbraith SL, Mendelow AD (eds): Intracranial Pressure VI. Berlin, Springer, 1986, pp 132–134.
21.
Ekstedt J, Fridén H: Estimation of CSF outflow resistance in humans: Infusion methods; in Gjerris F, Børgesen SE, Sørensen PS (eds): Outflow of Cerebrospinal Fluid; Alfred Benzon Symposium 27. Copenhagen, Munksgaard, 1989, pp 148–165.
22.
Fuhrmeister U: Liquorabflusswiderstand und intrakranielle Elastizität bei akuten und chronischen Erkrankungen des Subarachnoidalraums; Habilitationsschrift, Würzburg, 1985.
23.
Fuhrmeister U, Ruether P, Dommasch D, Gaab M: Alterations of CSF hydrodynamics following meningitis and subarachnoid hemorrhage; in Shulman K, Marmarou A, Miller JD, Becker DP, Hochwald GM, Brock M (eds): Intracranial Pressure IV. Berlin, Springer, 1980, pp 241–244.
24.
Shapiro K, Marmarou A, Shulman K: Characterization of clinical CSF dynamics and neural axis compliance using the pressure-volume index. I. The normal pressure-volume index. Ann Neurol 1980;7:508–514.
25.
Maksymowicz W, Czosnyka M, Koszewski W, Szymanska O, Zabolotny W: Post-shunting improvement in hydrocephalic patients described by cerebrospinal compensatory parameters; in Avezaat CJJ, Eijndhoven JHM, van Maas AIR, Tans JTJ (eds): Intracranial Pressure VII. Berlin, Springer, 1993, pp 829–832.
26.
Morgan MK, Johnston IH, Spittaler PJ: A ventricular infusion technique for the evaluation of treated and untreated hydrocephalus; in Avezaat CJJ, Eijndhoven JHM, van Maas AIR, Tans JTJ (eds): Intracranial Pressure VII. Berlin, Springer, 1993, pp 821–823.
27.
Børgesen SE, Gjerris F: The predictive value of conductance to outflow of CSF in normal pressure hydrocephalus. Brain 1982;105:65–86.
28.
Tans JTJ, Poortvliet DJC: Relationship between compliance and resistance to outflow of CSF in adult hydrocephalus. J Neurosurg 1989;71:59–62.
29.
Czosnyka M, Gjerris F, Maksymowicz W, Price D, Roszkowski M, Whitehouse H, Pickard JD: Computerised lumbar infusion test: Multicentric experience in clinical studies in hydrocephalus; in Nagai H, Kamiya K, Ishii S (eds): Intracranial Pressure IX. Berlin, Springer, 1994, pp 494–495.
30.
Ettlin TM, Staehlin HB, Kischka U, Ulrich J, Scollo-Lavizzari G, Wiggli U, Seiler WO: Computed tomography, electroencephalography, and clinical features in the differential diagnosis of senile dementia. Arch Neurol 1989;46:1217–1220.
31.
Nichtweiss M, Heedderks G, Rosenthal D: Zur Diagnose des idiopathischen sogenannten Normaldruckhydrocephalus. Nervenarzt 1988;59:267–273.
32.
Roost D, Solymosi L, Wallenfels PM: Narrow sulci at the medial brain surface: A feature of normal-pressure hydrocephalus in computerized tomography; in Lorenz R, Klinger M, Brock M (eds): Advances in Neurosurgery 21. Berlin, Springer, 1993, pp 141–144.
33.
Børgesen SE, Gjerris F: Relationship between intracranial pressure, ventricular size, and resistance to CSF outflow. J Neurosurg 1987;67:535–539.
34.
Vanneste JP, Augustijn P, Davies GAG, Dirven C, Tan WF: Normal-pressure hydrocephalus. Is cisternography still useful in selecting patients for a shunt? Arch Neurol 1992;44:366–370.
35.
Børgesen SE, Gyldensted C, Gjerris F, Lester J: Computed tomography and pneumoencephalography compared to conductance to outflow of CSF in normal pressure hydrocephalus. Neuroradiology 1980;20:17–22.
36.
Kosteljanetz M: CSF dynamics and pressure-volume relationships in communicating hydrocephalus. J Neurosurg 1986;64:45–52.
37.
Marmarou A: Progress in the analysis of intracranial pressure dynamics; in Miller JD, Teasdale GM, Rowan JO, Galbraith SL, Mendelow AD (eds): Intracranial Pressure VI. Berlin, Springer, 1986, pp 781–788.
38.
Børgesen SE: Conductance to outflow of CSF in normal pressure hydrocephalus. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 1984;71:1–45.
39.
Katzmann R, Hussey F: A simple constant-infusion manometric test for measurement of CSF absorption. Neurology 1970;20:534–544.
40.
Gjerris F, Børgesen SE, Hoppe E, Boesen F, Nordenbo AM: The conductance to outflow of CSF in adults with high-pressure hydrocephalus. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 1982;64:59–67.
41.
Hartmann A, Alberti E: Cerebral blood flow and cerebrospinal fluid pressure in patients with communicating hydrocephalus; in Wüllenweber R, Brock M, Hamer J, Klinger M, Spoerri O (eds): Lumbar Disc; Adult Hydrocephalus. Berlin, Springer, 1977, pp 144–155.
© 2001 S. Karger AG, Basel
2001
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.