The DOI matches its Crossref record.
DIAGNOSIS, TREATMENT, AND ANALYSIS OF LONG-TERM OUTCOMES IN IDIOPATHIC NORMAL-PRESSURE HYDROCEPHALUS
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The response to shunt surgery for idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus (INPH) is variable because INPH is difficult to distinguish from other conditions causing the same symptoms. To date, no clinical picture or diagnostic test can distinguish INPH or predict response to cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) shunt surgery. We reviewed our 10-year experience with INPH to characterize long-term outcome and to identify independent predictors of outcome after shunt surgery. METHODS: Patients were classified as having INPH only if they had: 1) ventriculomegaly, 2) two or more INPH clinical features, 3) no risk factor for secondary normal-pressure hydrocephalus, 4) A- or B-waves on CSF pressure monitoring, and 5) clinical improvement during a 3-day CSF drainage trial via a spinal catheter. Independent predictors of outcome were assessed via a multivariate proportional hazards regression analysis. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-two patients underwent 179 shunt surgeries. Forty-four (33%), 79 (60%), and 99 (75%) patients demonstrated objective improvement 3, 6, and 24 months after shunt surgery, respectively. Gait improved first in 88 (93%) patients. Dementia and urinary incontinence were twofold less likely to improve. Radiological evidence of corpus callosum distension, gait impairment as the primary symptom, and shorter duration of INPH symptoms predicted improvement. Duration of symptoms and gait as the primary symptom were independent predictors by multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: INPH can be diagnosed accurately with CSF pressure monitoring and CSF drainage via a spinal catheter. CSF shunting is safe and effective for INPH with a long-term shunt response rate of 75%. Independent predictors of improvement are the presence of gait impairment as the dominant symptom and shorter duration of symptoms.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Guidelines for Management of Idiopathic Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: Second Edition
MORI, E., ISHIKAWA, M., KATO, T., KAZUI, H., MIYAKE, H., MIYAJIMA, M., NAKAJIMA, M., HASHIMOTO, M., KURIYAMA, N., TOKUDA, T., et al. (2012) · Neurologia medico-chirurgica · doi:10.2176/nmc.52.775 · Cited by 666
Eide, P. K., & Sorteberg, W. (2010) · Neurosurgery · doi:10.1227/01.neu.0000363408.69856.b8 · Cited by 259
Deconstructing normal pressure hydrocephalus: ventriculomegaly as early sign of neurodegeneration
Espay, A. J., Da Prat, G. A., Dwivedi, A. K., Rodriguez‐Porcel, F., Vaughan, J. E., Rosso, M., Devoto, J. L., Duker, A. P., Masellis, M., Smith, C. D., et al. (2017) · Annals of Neurology · doi:10.1002/ana.25046 · Cited by 208
Metadata
- Authors
- McGirt, M. J., Woodworth, G., Coon, A. L., Thomas, G., Williams, M. A., & Rigamonti, D.
- Venue
- Neurosurgery
- Published
- 2008-02
- Volume
- 62
- Issue
- Supplement 2
- Pages
- 670-7
- ISSN
- 0148-396X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1967897143
- Cited by
- 246
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: DIAGNOSIS, TREATMENT, AND ANALYSIS OF LONG-TERM OUTCOMES IN IDIOPATHIC NORMAL-PRESSURE HYDROCEPHALUS. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1227/01.neu.0000316271.90090.b9
- The paper
- McGirt, M. J., Woodworth, G., Coon, A. L., Thomas, G., Williams, M. A., & Rigamonti, D. (2008). DIAGNOSIS, TREATMENT, AND ANALYSIS OF LONG-TERM OUTCOMES IN IDIOPATHIC NORMAL-PRESSURE HYDROCEPHALUS. Neurosurgery. https://doi.org/10.1227/01.neu.0000316271.90090.b9
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.