Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Account

Table 10 The use of flow void for prediction of shunt response in iNPH

From: Radiological predictors of shunt response in the diagnosis and treatment of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Study

Sample size

Radiological methodology

Cutoff specification

Image specification

Image plane

Main reported outcomes

Agerskov et al. [2]

n = 168

•Void in Cerebral aqueduct and fourth ventricle. Evaluated using ordinal scale graded 0–3

•N/A

•MRI 1.5 T. T1-weighted images

•Coronal slice

•0% of patients had grade 0, 30% had grade 1, 42% had grade 2 and 28% had grade 3

•There was no significant difference, in each grade, between SR and SNR

Virhammar et al. [60]

n = 36

•Ordinal scale: Graded 0–3. 0 = no flow, 1 = flow void only in the aqueduct, 2 = flow void in the aqueduct and upper half of the fourth ventricle, 3 = flow that extends to caudal part 4th ventricle

•N/A

•T2-weighted images

•Sagittal images without flow compensation

•OR between SR and SNR: 4.25 (0.75–23.97), p = 0.1) was not significant

  1. Studies included assessing the use of any advanced imaging radiological marker as predictor of shunt responsiveness. SR, shunt response; S-NR, shunt non-response
Back to article page