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

Table 7 The use of Temporal Horn Size for prediction of shunt response in iNPH

Study	Sample size	Radiological methodology	Cutoff specification	Image specification	Image plane	Main reported outcomes
Poca et al., 2004 [45]	n = 43	•Temporal horns were categorized into normal or enlarged	•N/A	•CT	•N/A	•10 patients had normal horns while 33 had enlarged horns. There was no difference in outcome between the two groups
Agerskov et al., 2019 [2]	n = 168	•Maximum diameter	•N/A	•MRI 1.5 T. trans-axial T1-weighted images	•Axial slice	•There was no difference between SR (median 9.0 mm) and SNR (median 9.1 mm) [p > 0.05] and it could not be used to predict SR in multivariate logistical analysis
Virhammar et al., 2014 [60]	n = 108	•Average of left and right max diameter of temporal horns in mm	•N/A	•T2 FLAIR, T1-weighted MRI. (9% of patients on 3 T scanner; 70% on a 1.5 T scanner, 14% on a 1 T scanner and 7% on a 0.5 T scanner	•Transverse plane	•OR between SR and SNR: 1.84 (1.11–3.03), p = 0.018) was statistically significant

Studies included assessing the use of any advanced imaging radiological marker as predictor of shunt responsiveness. SR, shunt response; S-NR, shunt non-response; FLAIR, fluid-attenuated inversion recovery