Long term follow-up of shunted idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus patients: a single center experience

Imagem de Miniatura
Arquivos
art_OLIVEIRA_Long_term_followup_of_shunted_idiopathic_normal_pressure_2021.PDF (717.14 KB)
Citações na Scopus
3
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2021
DOI
Scopus
Web of Science
PubMed
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
Autores
SORTE JR., A. A. Boa
EMERENCIANO, D. L.
ROTTA, J. M.
Citação
ACTA NEUROLOGICA BELGICA, v.121, n.6, p.1799-1806, 2021
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
Idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH) is a condition characterized by gait disturbance, dementia and/or urinary incontinence and enlarged ventricular system due to disturbance of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). This study aims to describe the long-term experience with patients with iNPH submitted to ventriculoperitoneal shunt (VPS) with the programmable valve STRATA (R) (Medtronic). We prospectively selected a cohort of patients with a diagnosis of iNPH from January 2010 to April 2013 in a Brazilian tertiary hospital. All patients underwent clinical evaluation, which consists of the Mini-Mental State Examination and Time Up and Go tests and the application of Japanese Scale for Idiopathic Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus in three stages: prior to the TT, 3 h after the TT and 72 h after the TT. Fifty patients were submitted to VPS and followed. There were 32 men and 18 women. Mean age was 77.1 with standard deviation of 10.9. Follow-up time ranged from 96 to 120 months, with mean of 106 months. After 1 year of follow-up, 42 (83%) patients presented with clinical improvement, decreasing to 62% of patients at mid-term follow-up and 38% of patients at late follow-up. Complications occurred in 18% of subjects, needing reoperation in 16%. Our results show relevant clinical impact of shunting in iNPH patients, decreasing over time. Complications should not be underestimated, reaching up to 18% and demanding reoperation in 16% of cases. Thus, although much has been improved with current shunt technology, it is still important to consider the drawbacks of treatment.
Palavras-chave
Normal pressure hydrocephalus, Cerebrospinal fluid shunts, Treatment
URI
https://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/44144
Referências
  1. Agarwal N, 2019, J NEUROSURG, V130, P1252, DOI 10.3171/2017.11.JNS172212
  2. Andren K, 2020, J NEUROL, V267, P640, DOI 10.1007/s00415-019-09598-1
  3. Andren K, 2014, J NEUROL NEUROSUR PS, V85, P806, DOI 10.1136/jnnp-2013-306117
  4. Benveniste RJ, 2018, J NEUROL SCI, V393, P105, DOI 10.1016/j.jns.2018.08.002
  5. Cage TA, 2011, J CLIN NEUROSCI, V18, P649, DOI 10.1016/j.jocn.2010.08.028
  6. Chen YF, 2008, SURG NEUROL, V70, P69, DOI 10.1016/j.surneu.2008.08.079
  7. de Oliveira MF, 2013, ARQ NEURO-PSIQUIAT, V71, P229, DOI 10.1590/0004-282X20130007
  8. de Oliveira Matheus Fernandes, 2011, Front Hum Neurosci, V5, P181, DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2011.00181
  9. Feletti A, 2019, OPER NEUROSURG, V17, P97, DOI 10.1093/ons/opy232
  10. Pinto FCG, 2013, NEUROSURGERY, V72, P845, DOI 10.1227/NEU.0b013e318285b37c
  11. Pinto FCG, 2012, ARQ NEURO-PSIQUIAT, V70, P704, DOI 10.1590/S0004-282X2012000900011
  12. Grahnke K, 2018, WORLD NEUROSURG, V115, pE717, DOI 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.04.150
  13. Grasso G, 2019, WORLD NEUROSURG, V129, pE458, DOI 10.1016/j.wneu.2019.05.183
  14. Illan-Gala I, 2017, NEUROLOGIA, V32, P205, DOI 10.1016/j.nrl.2015.10.002
  15. Isik AT, 2019, CLIN INTERV AGING, V14, P2063, DOI 10.2147/CIA.S228257
  16. Junkkari A, 2019, FLUIDS BARRIERS CNS, V16, DOI 10.1186/s12987-019-0142-9
  17. Junkkari A, 2017, EUR J NEUROL, V24, P58, DOI 10.1111/ene.13130
  18. Klinge P, 2012, ACTA NEUROL SCAND, V126, P145, DOI 10.1111/j.1600-0404.2012.01676.x
  19. Kondageski C, 2007, J NEUROSURG, V106, P95, DOI 10.3171/ped.2007.106.2.95
  20. Lundkvist B, 2011, ACTA NEUROL SCAND, V124, P115, DOI 10.1111/j.1600-0404.2010.01432.x
  21. McGirt MJ, 2008, NEUROSURGERY, V62, P670, DOI [10.1227/01.NEU.0000175724.00147.10, 10.1227/01.neu.0000316271.90090.b9]
  22. Meier U, 2006, ACTA NEUROCHIR SUPPL, V96, P368
  23. Mirzayan MJ, 2010, NEUROSURGERY, V67, P295, DOI 10.1227/01.NEU.0000371972.74630.EC
  24. Miyajima M, 2016, J NEUROSURG, V125, P1483, DOI 10.3171/2015.10.JNS151894
  25. Mori K, 2001, J NEUROSURG, V95, P970, DOI 10.3171/jns.2001.95.6.0970
  26. Nakajima M, 2015, WORLD NEUROSURG, V83, P387, DOI 10.1016/j.wneu.2014.08.004
  27. Pereira RM, 2016, ARQ NEURO-PSIQUIAT, V74, P55, DOI 10.1590/0004-282X20150190
  28. Pujari S, 2008, J NEUROL NEUROSUR PS, V79, P1282, DOI 10.1136/jnnp.2007.123620
  29. Razay G, 2019, BMJ OPEN, V9, DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028103
  30. Reddy GK, 2014, WORLD NEUROSURG, V81, P404, DOI 10.1016/j.wneu.2013.01.096
  31. Shprecher D, 2008, CURR NEUROL NEUROSCI, V8, P371, DOI 10.1007/s11910-008-0058-2
  32. Mendes GAS, 2017, WORLD NEUROSURG, V105, P456, DOI 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.05.137
  33. Subramanian HE, 2018, WORLD NEUROSURG, V119, pE46, DOI 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.06.209
  34. Takeuchi T, 2019, NEUROL MED-CHIR, V59, P281, DOI 10.2176/nmc.oa.2018-0318
  35. Toma AK, 2011, NEUROSURG REV, V34, P433, DOI 10.1007/s10143-011-0316-7
  36. Wetzel C, 2020, ACTA NEUROCHIR, V162, P15, DOI 10.1007/s00701-019-04088-9
  37. Zemack G, 2002, NEUROSURGERY, V51, P1392, DOI 10.1097/00006123-200212000-00009

Coleções
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HC/ICHC
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HC/IPq