Lumbar puncture tap test in iNPH: Does extracting different volumes of CSF change the clinical response?

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery Pub Date : 2024-09-20 DOI:10.1016/j.clineuro.2024.108565
Evangelia Liouta, Christos Koutsarnakis, Eleytherios Neromyliotis, Lykourgos Anastasopoulos, Eirini Charalampopoulou, Loykas Kalpouzos, Alexandros Kossyvas, Aristotelis Kalyvas, Dimitrios Dimopoulos, Anastasia Mousiou, George Stranjalis
{"title":"Lumbar puncture tap test in iNPH: Does extracting different volumes of CSF change the clinical response?","authors":"Evangelia Liouta,&nbsp;Christos Koutsarnakis,&nbsp;Eleytherios Neromyliotis,&nbsp;Lykourgos Anastasopoulos,&nbsp;Eirini Charalampopoulou,&nbsp;Loykas Kalpouzos,&nbsp;Alexandros Kossyvas,&nbsp;Aristotelis Kalyvas,&nbsp;Dimitrios Dimopoulos,&nbsp;Anastasia Mousiou,&nbsp;George Stranjalis","doi":"10.1016/j.clineuro.2024.108565","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Although the Lumbar Tap Test (LTT) typically involves removing 30–50 ml of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), the optimal amount for a valid test is unclear. This study investigates the relationship between the volume of CSF removed and the extent of gait improvement in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Seventy-six iNPH patients with gait improvement after LTT were divided into two groups: high CSF volume (&gt; 40 ml) and low CSF volume (&lt; 40 ml). Spearman’s r correlations and non-parametric t-tests were used to analyze the relationship between CSF volume removed and gait improvement.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Gait improvement after LTT showed a moderate positive correlation (r = 0.372, p &lt; 0.001) with CSF volume. Those in the high-volume group had significantly greater improvement (p &lt; 0.01). Improvement was also correlated with baseline gait parameters: pre-LTT gait speed (r = −4.14, p = 0.006), steps to complete a walking test (r = 0.440, p &lt; 0.001), and a 360° turn (r = 0.563, p &lt; 0.001).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Larger CSF removal during LTT positively affects gait improvement in iNPH patients. Gait improvement is also greater in those with more severe initial gait impairments independently from the CSF volume extracted.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":10385,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery","volume":"246 ","pages":"Article 108565"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0303846724004529","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Although the Lumbar Tap Test (LTT) typically involves removing 30–50 ml of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), the optimal amount for a valid test is unclear. This study investigates the relationship between the volume of CSF removed and the extent of gait improvement in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH).

Methods

Seventy-six iNPH patients with gait improvement after LTT were divided into two groups: high CSF volume (> 40 ml) and low CSF volume (< 40 ml). Spearman’s r correlations and non-parametric t-tests were used to analyze the relationship between CSF volume removed and gait improvement.

Results

Gait improvement after LTT showed a moderate positive correlation (r = 0.372, p < 0.001) with CSF volume. Those in the high-volume group had significantly greater improvement (p < 0.01). Improvement was also correlated with baseline gait parameters: pre-LTT gait speed (r = −4.14, p = 0.006), steps to complete a walking test (r = 0.440, p < 0.001), and a 360° turn (r = 0.563, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Larger CSF removal during LTT positively affects gait improvement in iNPH patients. Gait improvement is also greater in those with more severe initial gait impairments independently from the CSF volume extracted.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
iNPH 的腰椎穿刺抽取试验:抽取不同体积的 CSF 会改变临床反应吗?
导言尽管腰椎穿刺试验(LTT)通常需要抽取 30-50 毫升脑脊液(CSF),但有效试验的最佳抽取量尚不明确。本研究探讨了特发性正常压力脑积水(iNPH)患者脑脊液抽出量与步态改善程度之间的关系。方法将 76 例经腰椎穿刺试验后步态改善的 iNPH 患者分为两组:高脑脊液量组(> 40 ml)和低脑脊液量组(< 40 ml)。结果 LTT 后步态改善与 CSF 容量呈中度正相关(r = 0.372,p < 0.001)。高容量组的改善幅度明显更大(p < 0.01)。改善情况还与基线步态参数相关:LTT 前步态速度(r = -4.14,p = 0.006)、完成步行测试的步数(r = 0.440,p <0.001)和 360° 转体(r = 0.563,p <0.001)。结论LTT时抽取更多的CSF对iNPH患者的步态改善有积极影响,而与抽取的CSF量无关,步态改善对初始步态障碍更严重的患者影响更大。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery
Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
5.30%
发文量
358
审稿时长
46 days
期刊介绍: Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery is devoted to publishing papers and reports on the clinical aspects of neurology and neurosurgery. It is an international forum for papers of high scientific standard that are of interest to Neurologists and Neurosurgeons world-wide.
期刊最新文献
The impact of access site on procedure time and post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) time in patients undergoing outpatient diagnostic angiograms: A propensity-score matched analysis stratified by body mass index Enhancing the diagnostic value of T2-FLAIR mismatch sign in IDH-mutated gliomas: Insights and future directions Treatment of patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage and multiple aneurysms: Concurrent versus delayed treatment Behavioral pain scales, vital signs, and pupilometry to pain assessment in the critically ill patient: A cross sectional study The effect of prognostic nutritional indices on stroke hospitalization outcomes
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1