Ventricular Volume Is More Strongly Associated with Clinical Improvement Than the Evans Index after Shunting in Idiopathic Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Marmarou A,
   2. Black P,
   3. Bergsneider M, et al

   ; International NPH Consultant Group. Guidelines for management of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: progress to date. Acta Neurochir Suppl 2005;95: 237–40 doi:10.1007/3-211-32318-x_48 pmid:16463856

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   1. Ishikawa M,
   2. Hashimoto M,
   3. Kuwana N, et al

   . Guidelines for management of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 2008;48(Suppl):S1–23 doi:10.2176/nmc.48.s1 pmid:18408356

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

   . Diagnosing idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus. Neurosurgery 2005;57(Suppl):S4–16; discussion ii–v doi:10.1227/01.neu.0000168185.29659.c5 pmid:16160425

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.
   1. Marmarou A,
   2. Bergsneider M,
   3. Klinge P, et al

   . The value of supplemental prognostic tests for the preoperative assessment of idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus. Neurosurgery 2005;57(Supple 3):S2–17 doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000168184.01002.60

   CrossRef
5. 5.
   1. Bergsneider M,
   2. Black PM,
   3. Klinge P, et al

   . Surgical management of idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus. Neurosurgery 2005;57(Suppl):S29–39; discussion ii–v doi:10.1227/01.neu.0000168186.45363.4d pmid:16160427

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   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

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   1. Farahmand D,
   2. Sæhle T,
   3. Eide PK, et al

   . A double-blind randomized trial on the clinical effect of different shunt valve settings in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. J Neurosurg 2016;124:359–67 doi:10.3171/2015.1.JNS141301 pmid:26315004

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   1. Farahmand D,
   2. Qvarlander S,
   3. Malm J, et al

   . Intracranial pressure in hydrocephalus: impact of shunt adjustments and body positions. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2015;86:222–28 doi:10.1136/jnnp-2014-307873 pmid:24963125

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
9. 9.↵
   1. Evans WA

   . An encephalographic ratio for estimating ventricular enlargement and cerebral atrophy. Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry 1942;47:931 doi:10.1001/archneurpsyc.1942.02290060069004

   CrossRef
10. 10.↵
    1. Synek V,
    2. Reuben JR,
    3. Du Boulay GH

    . Comparing Evans’ index and computerized axial tomography in assessing relationship of ventricular size to brain size. Neurology 1976;26:231–33 doi:10.1212/wnl.26.3.231 pmid:1082559

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
11. 11.↵
    1. Toma AK,
    2. Holl E,
    3. Kitchen ND, et al

    . Evans’ index revisited: the need for an alternative in normal pressure hydrocephalus. Neurosurgery 2011;68:939–44 doi:10.1227/NEU.0b013e318208f5e0 pmid:21221031

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    1. Meier U,
    2. Paris S,
    3. Gräwe A, et al

    . Is there a correlation between operative results and change in ventricular volume after shunt placement? A study of 60 cases of idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus. Neuroradiology 2003;45:377–80 doi:10.1007/s00234-003-0989-x pmid:12750865

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    1. Meier U,
    2. Mutze S

    . Correlation between decreased ventricular size and positive clinical outcome following shunt placement in patients with normal-pressure hydrocephalus. J Neurosurg 2004;100:1036–40 doi:10.3171/jns.2004.100.6.1036 pmid:15200118

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    1. Hiraoka K,
    2. Yamasaki H,
    3. Takagi M, et al

    . Changes in the volumes of the brain and cerebrospinal fluid spaces after shunt surgery in idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus. J Neurol Sci 2010;296:7–12 doi:10.1016/j.jns.2010.06.021 pmid:20663514

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.
    1. Tsunoda A,
    2. Mitsuoka H,
    3. Bandai H, et al

    . Intracranial cerebrospinal fluid distribution and its postoperative changes in normal pressure hydrocephalus. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2001;143:493–99 doi:10.1007/s007010170079 pmid:11482700

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    1. Anderson RC,
    2. Grant JJ,
    3. de la Paz R, et al

    . Volumetric measurements in the detection of reduced ventricular volume in patients with normal-pressure hydrocephalus whose clinical condition improved after ventriculoperitoneal shunt placement. J Neurosurg 2002;97:73–79 doi:10.3171/jns.2002.97.1.0073 pmid:12134935

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
17. 17.↵
    1. Virhammar J,
    2. Laurell K,
    3. Cesarin KG, et al

    . Increase in callosal angle and decrease in ventricular volume after shunt surgery in patients with idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. J Neurosurg 2018;130:130–35 doi:10.3171/2017.8.JNS17547 pmid:29393749

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    1. Hellstrom P,
    2. Klinge P,
    3. Tans J, et al

    . A new scale for assessment of severity and outcome in iNPH. Acta Neurol Scand 2012;126:229–37 doi:10.1111/j.1600-0404.2012.01677.x pmid:22587624

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    1. Wikkelso C,
    2. Andersson H,
    3. Lindberg S, et al

    . ‘Shuntography’: a radionuclide scanning method for evaluation of cerebrospinal fluid shunt patency. Nucl Med Commun 1983;4:88–93

    CrossRef
20. 20.↵
    1. Malm J,
    2. Lundkvist B,
    3. Eklund A, et al

    . CSF outflow resistance as predictor of shunt function. a long-term study. Acta Neurol Scand 2004;110:154–60 doi:10.1111/j.1600-0404.2004.00302.x pmid:15285771

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
21. 21.↵
    1. Yushkevich PA,
    2. Piven J,
    3. Hazlett HC, et al

    . User-guided 3D active contour segmentation of anatomical structures: significantly improved efficiency and reliability. Neuroimage 2006;31:1116–28 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.01.015 pmid:16545965

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
22. 22.↵
    1. Crook JE,
    2. Gunter JL,
    3. Ball CT, et al

    . Linear vs volume measures of ventricle size: relation to present and future gait and cognition. Neurology 2020;94:e549–56 doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000008673 pmid:31748251

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
23. 23.↵
    1. Delwel EJ,
    2. de Jong DA,
    3. Dammers R, et al

    . A randomised trial of high and low pressure level settings on an adjustable ventriculoperitoneal shunt valve for idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: results of the Dutch Evaluation Programme Strata Shunt (DEPSS) trial. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2013;84:813–17 doi:10.1136/jnnp-2012-302935 pmid:23408069

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
24. 24.↵
    1. Boon AJ,
    2. Tans JT,
    3. Delwel EJ, et al

    . Dutch normal pressure hydrocephalus study: baseline characteristics with emphasis on clinical findings. Eur J Neurol 1997;4:39–47 doi:10.1111/j.1468-1331.1997.tb00297.x pmid:24283820

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    1. Tans JT,
    2. Poortvliet DC

    . Reduction of ventricular size after shunting for normal pressure hydrocephalus related to CSF dynamics before shunting. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1988;51:521–25 doi:10.1136/jnnp.51.4.521 pmid:3379425

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
26. 26.↵
    1. Klinge P,
    2. Hellström P,
    3. Tans J, et al

    ; On behalf of the European iNPH Multicentre Study Group. One-year outcome in the European multicentre study on iNPH. Acta Neurol Scand 2012;126:145–53 doi:10.1111/j.1600-0404.2012.01676.x pmid:22571428

    CrossRefPubMed
27. 27.↵
    1. Kahlon B,
    2. Sjunnesson J,
    3. Rehncrona S

    . Long-term outcome in patients with suspected normal pressure hydrocephalus. Neurosurgery 2007;60:327–32 doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000249273.41569.6E

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
28. 28.↵
    1. Lindberg K,
    2. Kouti A,
    3. Ziegelitz D, et al

    . Three-dimensional volumetric segmentation of pituitary tumors: assessment of inter-rater agreement and comparison with conventional geometric equations. J Neurol Surg B Skull B 2018;79:475–81 doi:10.1055/s-0037-1618577 pmid:30210975

    CrossRefPubMed
29. 29.
    1. John JP,
    2. Wang L,
    3. Moffitt AJ, et al

    . Inter-rater reliability of manual segmentation of the superior, inferior and middle frontal gyri. Psychiatry Res 2006;148:151–63 doi:10.1016/j.pscychresns.2006.05.006 pmid:17088050

    CrossRefPubMed
30. 30.↵
    1. Akudjedu TN,
    2. Nabulsi L,
    3. Makelyte M, et al

    . A comparative study of segmentation techniques for the quantification of brain subcortical volume. Brain Imaging Behav 2018;12:1678–95 doi:10.1007/s11682-018-9835-y pmid:29442273

    CrossRefPubMed
31. 31.↵
    1. Tohka J

    . Partial volume effect modeling for segmentation and tissue classification of brain magnetic resonance images: a review. World J Radiol 2014;6:855–64 doi:10.4329/wjr.v6.i11.855 pmid:25431640

    CrossRefPubMed
32. 32.↵
    1. Despotovic I,
    2. Goossens B,
    3. Philips W

    . MRI segmentation of the human brain: challenges, methods, and applications. Comput Math Methods Med 2015;2015:450341 doi:10.1155/2015/450341 pmid:25945121

    CrossRefPubMed
33. 33.↵
    1. Ambarki K,
    2. Lindqvist T,
    3. Wåhlin A, et al

    . Evaluation of automatic measurement of the intracranial volume based on quantitative MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:1951–56 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3067 pmid:22555574

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
34. 34.↵
    1. Qiu W,
    2. Yuan J,
    3. Rajchl M, et al

    . 3D MR ventricle segmentation in pre-term infants with post-hemorrhagic ventricle dilatation (PHVD) using multi-phase geodesic level-sets. Neuroimage 2015;118:13–25 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.05.099 pmid:26070262

    CrossRefPubMed