Radiological predictors of shunt response in the diagnosis and treatment of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Callosal angle
DESH
Evan's Index
Idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus
NPH
Normal pressure hydrocephalus
Predict
Prediction
Radiological marker
Radiological predictor
Shunt response
iNPH
Journal
Acta neurochirurgica
ISSN: 0942-0940
Titre abrégé: Acta Neurochir (Wien)
Pays: Austria
ID NLM: 0151000
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2023
02 2023
Historique:
received:
08
07
2022
accepted:
24
10
2022
pubmed:
27
11
2022
medline:
15
2
2023
entrez:
26
11
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Patients with the dementia subtype idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH) may improve clinically following cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) diversion (shunt) surgery, though the predictors of shunt response remain debated. Currently, radiological features play an important role in the diagnosis of iNPH, but it is not well established which radiological markers most precisely predict shunt responsive iNPH. To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify radiological predictors of shunt responsiveness, evaluate their diagnostic effectiveness, and recommend the most predictive radiological features. Embase, MEDLINE, Scopus, PubMed, Google Scholar, and JSTOR were searched for original studies investigating radiological predictors of shunt response in iNPH patients. Included studies were assessed using the ROBINS-1 tool, and eligible studies were evaluated using a univariate meta-analysis. Overall, 301 full-text papers were screened, of which 28 studies were included, and 26 different radiological features were identified, 5 of these met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis: disproportionately enlarged subarachnoid space (DESH), callosal angle, periventricular white matter changes, cerebral blood flow (CBF), and computerized tomography cisternography. The meta-analysis showed that only callosal angle and periventricular white matter changes significantly differentiated iNPH shunt responders from non-responders, though both markers had a low diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of 1.88 and 1.01 respectively. None of the other radiological markers differentiated shunt responsive from shunt non-responsive iNPH. Callosal angle and periventricular changes are the only diagnostically effective radiological predictors of shunt responsive iNPH patients. However, due to the DORs approximating 1, they are insufficient as sole predictors and are advised to be used only in combination with other diagnostic tests of shunt response. Future research must evaluate the combined use of multiple radiological predictors, as it may yield beneficial additive effects that may allow for more robust radiological shunt response prediction.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Patients with the dementia subtype idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH) may improve clinically following cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) diversion (shunt) surgery, though the predictors of shunt response remain debated. Currently, radiological features play an important role in the diagnosis of iNPH, but it is not well established which radiological markers most precisely predict shunt responsive iNPH.
OBJECTIVE
To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify radiological predictors of shunt responsiveness, evaluate their diagnostic effectiveness, and recommend the most predictive radiological features.
METHODS
Embase, MEDLINE, Scopus, PubMed, Google Scholar, and JSTOR were searched for original studies investigating radiological predictors of shunt response in iNPH patients. Included studies were assessed using the ROBINS-1 tool, and eligible studies were evaluated using a univariate meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Overall, 301 full-text papers were screened, of which 28 studies were included, and 26 different radiological features were identified, 5 of these met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis: disproportionately enlarged subarachnoid space (DESH), callosal angle, periventricular white matter changes, cerebral blood flow (CBF), and computerized tomography cisternography. The meta-analysis showed that only callosal angle and periventricular white matter changes significantly differentiated iNPH shunt responders from non-responders, though both markers had a low diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of 1.88 and 1.01 respectively. None of the other radiological markers differentiated shunt responsive from shunt non-responsive iNPH.
CONCLUSION
Callosal angle and periventricular changes are the only diagnostically effective radiological predictors of shunt responsive iNPH patients. However, due to the DORs approximating 1, they are insufficient as sole predictors and are advised to be used only in combination with other diagnostic tests of shunt response. Future research must evaluate the combined use of multiple radiological predictors, as it may yield beneficial additive effects that may allow for more robust radiological shunt response prediction.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36435931
doi: 10.1007/s00701-022-05402-8
pii: 10.1007/s00701-022-05402-8
pmc: PMC9922237
doi:
Types de publication
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
369-419Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Stat Methods Med Res. 1993;2(2):121-45
pubmed: 8261254
Neurosurgery. 1996 Aug;39(2):292-9; discussion 299-300
pubmed: 8832666
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2021 Mar;163(3):759-766
pubmed: 33438062
Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2013;35(3-4):197-207
pubmed: 23467281
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014 Dec;35(12):2311-8
pubmed: 25012669
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1986 Mar;146(3):443-50
pubmed: 3484859
J Neurosurg. 2017 Dec;127(6):1436-1442
pubmed: 28156249
Surg Neurol. 2008 Dec;70 Suppl 1:S1:69-77; discussion S1:77
pubmed: 19061772
J Neurosurg. 2018 Nov 1;:1-13
pubmed: 30497150
Sci Rep. 2020 Aug 3;10(1):13054
pubmed: 32747671
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2022 Jul;164(7):1719-1746
pubmed: 35230552
Stat Med. 2001 Dec 30;20(24):3875-89
pubmed: 11782040
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2019 Jan;40(1):74-79
pubmed: 30523139
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2021 Oct;163(10):2641-2672
pubmed: 34235589
Radiology. 1970 Aug;96(2):347-58
pubmed: 5431420
Neurosurgery. 2005 Oct;57(4):699-705; discussion 699-705
pubmed: 16239882
J Neurosurg. 2004 May;100(5):855-66
pubmed: 15137605
N Engl J Med. 1965 Jul 15;273:117-26
pubmed: 14303656
Neuroradiology. 2014 Jan;56(1):5-13
pubmed: 24158631
Acta Neurochir Suppl. 2002;81:7-10
pubmed: 12168360
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097
pubmed: 19621072
J Neurol Sci. 2018 Apr 15;387:21-26
pubmed: 29571865
J Alzheimers Dis. 2015;46(4):1033-8
pubmed: 26402630
Neurosurgery. 2019 Oct 1;85(4):E747-E755
pubmed: 31115469
J Neurosurg. 1980 Mar;52(3):371-7
pubmed: 7359191
Neurosurgery. 2001 Nov;49(5):1166-84; discussion 1184-6
pubmed: 11846911
PLoS One. 2020 Apr 24;15(4):e0232275
pubmed: 32330190
J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 1999 Summer;11(3):297-300
pubmed: 10440004
Eur J Neurol. 2018 Mar;25(3):569-576
pubmed: 29281156
Sci Rep. 2021 May 18;11(1):10473
pubmed: 34006910
World Neurosurg. 2018 Jul;115:e717-e722
pubmed: 29723726
Clin Nucl Med. 2013 Sep;38(9):671-6
pubmed: 23816939
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2022 Feb;164(2):481-482
pubmed: 34743226
Eur Radiol. 2021 Jul;31(7):4972-4980
pubmed: 33389035
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2016 Nov;158(11):2207-2213
pubmed: 27349896
J Neurosurg. 2014 Jan;120(1):178-84
pubmed: 24074491
BMJ. 2016 Oct 12;355:i4919
pubmed: 27733354
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2011 Oct;153(10):2041-8; discussion 2048
pubmed: 21611722
Eur Radiol. 2021 Jul;31(7):5300-5311
pubmed: 33409775
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2014 Jun;39(6):1533-42
pubmed: 24006249
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2013 Oct;155(10):1977-80
pubmed: 23975646
J Neurosurg. 2001 Dec;95(6):970-3
pubmed: 11765841
J Neurosurg Sci. 2020 Oct;64(5):420-426
pubmed: 28869371
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2007 Oct;149(10):991-7
pubmed: 17680175
Neurosurgery. 2005 Sep;57(3 Suppl):S4-16; discussion ii-v
pubmed: 16160425
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2016 Oct;37(10):1831-1837
pubmed: 27365329
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2006 Jan;27(1):76-9
pubmed: 16418361
Neurosurgery. 2010 Jan;66(1):80-91
pubmed: 20023540
PLoS One. 2020 Oct 8;15(10):e0240327
pubmed: 33031420
Eur J Radiol. 2017 Oct;95:28-32
pubmed: 28987681
Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2021 Feb 15;61(2):63-97
pubmed: 33455998
J Clin Neurosci. 2003 Jul;10(4):453-9
pubmed: 12852885
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2021 Aug;42(8):1429-1436
pubmed: 34045302
J Neurol Sci. 2013 May 15;328(1-2):64-9
pubmed: 23510566
Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2011;32(1):1-10
pubmed: 21811073
Neurology. 1993 Sep;43(9):1683-9
pubmed: 8414012
Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2019 Jan 18;6(2):233-242
pubmed: 30847356
Acta Neurochir Suppl. 2016;122:287-90
pubmed: 27165923