Submitted:
22 June 2023
Posted:
22 June 2023
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
- Evans’ index: the ratio between the maximal width of the frontal horns of the lateral ventricles [B-C] by the maximal width of the inner table of the cranium in the same axial image [5].
- Narrow parietal sulci: at high-convexity and parafalcine region assessed in both axial plane in the most superior slices and coronal plane [6].
- Dilation of the Sylvian fissures: reported as present or not present in the coronal plane compared with surrounding sulci [7].
- Focally enlarged sulci: compared with surrounding sulci, usually found in coronal or axial planes [8].
- Temporal horns: reported as mean width of the right and left side, measuring in the axial plane [7].
- Callosal angle: angle between the lateral ventricles in the coronal plane through the posterior commissure perpendicular to the intercommissural plane [9].
- Periventricular hypodensities: along the lateral ventricles graded as not present, present as a cap around frontal horns or confluently extending around the lateral ventricles [10].
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Limitation
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Damasceno, BP. Neuroimaging in normal pressure hydrocephalus. Dement Neuropsychol. 2015, 9, 350–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kockum K, Virhammar J, Riklund K, Söderström L, Larsson EM, Laurell K. Standardized image evaluation in patients with idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: consistency and reproducibility. Neuroradiology. 2019, 61, 1397–1406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kockum K, Lilja-Lund O, Larsson E et al. The Idiopathic Normal-Pressure Hydrocephalus Radscale: A Radiological Scale for Structured Evaluation. Eur J Neurol. 2018, 25, 569–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhou X, Ye Q, Yang X, et al. AI-based medical e-diagnosis for fast and automatic ventricular volume measurement in patients with normal pressure hydrocephalus [published online ahead of print, 2022 Feb 24]. Neural Comput Appl. 2022;1-10.
- Evans WAJ. An encephalographic ratio for estimating ventricular enlargement and cerebral atrophy. Arch NeurPsych. 1942, 47, 931–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sasaki M, Honda S, Yuasa T, Iwamura A, Shibata E, Ohba H. Narrow CSF space at high convexity and high midline areas in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus detected by axial and coronal MRI. Neuroradiology. 2008, 50, 117–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Virhammar J, Laurell K, Cesarini KG, Larsson EM. Preoperative prognostic value of MRI findings in 108 patients with idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014, 35, 2311–2318.
- Holodny AI, George AE, de Leon MJ, Golomb J, Kalnin AJ, Cooper PR. Focal dilation and paradoxical collapse of cortical fissures and sulci in patients with normal-pressure hydrocephalus. J Neurosurg. 1998, 89, 742–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ishii K, Kanda T, Harada A, et al. Clinical impact of the callosal angle in the diagnosis of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. Eur Radiol. 2008, 18, 2678–2683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fazekas F, Chawluk JB, Alavi A, Hurtig HI, Zimmerman RA. MR signal abnormalities at 1.5 T in Alzheimer's dementia and normal aging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1987, 149, 351–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Andersson J, Rosell M, Kockum K, Lilja-Lund O, Söderström L, Laurell K. Prevalence of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: A prospective, population-based study. PLoS One. 2019, 14, e0217705. [Google Scholar]
- Oliveira LM, Nitrini R, Román GC. Normal-pressure hydrocephalus: A critical review [published correction appears in Dement Neuropsychol. 2019 Jul-Sep;13(3):361]. Dement Neuropsychol. 2019, 13, 133–143.
- 13. Maytal J, Alvarez LA, Elkin CM et-al. External hydrocephalus: radiologic spectrum and differentiation from cerebral atrophy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1987; 148, 1223–1230.
- Toma A. K., Holl E., Kitchen N. D., Watkins L. D. (2011). Evans' index revisited: the need for an alternative in normal pressure hydrocephalus. Neurosurgery. 68, 939–944. 10.1227. t: index revisited.
- Del B. O., Mera R. M., Gladstone D., Sarmiento-Bobadilla M., Cagino K., Zambrano M., et al.. (2018). Inverse relationship between the evans index and cognitive performance in non-disabled, stroke-free, community-dwelling older adults. A population-based study. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 169, 139–143. 10.1016.
- Ambarki K, Israelsson H, Wåhlin A, Birgander R, Eklund A, Malm J. Brain ventricular size in healthy elderly: comparison between Evans index and volume measurement. Neurosurgery. 2010, 67, 94–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Narita W, Nishio Y, Baba T, et al. High-Convexity Tightness Predicts the Shunt Response in Idiopathic Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2016, 37, 1831–1837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lee W, Lee A, Li H, et al. Callosal angle in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: small angular mal-rotations of the coronal plane affect measurement reliability. Neuroradiology. 2021, 63, 1659–1667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tullberg M, Jensen C, Ekholm S, Wikkelso C. Normal pressure hydrocephalus: vascular white matter changes on MRI must not exclude patients from shunt surgery. Am J Neuroradiol. 2001, 22, 1665–1673. [Google Scholar]
- Zhou X, Xia J. Application of Evans Index in Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus Patients: A Mini Review. Front Aging Neurosci. 2022, 13, 783092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wu D, Moghekar A, Shi W, Blitz AM, Mori S. Systematic volumetric analysis predicts response to CSF drainage and outcome to shunt surgery in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. Eur Radiol. 2021, 31, 4972–4980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Muscas, G, Matteuzzi, T,Becattini, E, et al. Development of machine learning models to prognosticate chronic shunt-dependent hydrocephalus after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Acta neurochirurgica, 2022, 162, 3093–3105.
- Zhang A, Khan A, Majeti S, Pham J, Nguyen C, Tran P, et al. Automated Segmentation and Connectivity Analysis for Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus. BME Frontiers 2022, 2022, 1–13. [Google Scholar]





| Variables | All (n = 217) | Normal (n = 112) | NPH (n = 105) | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender (M: F) | 105 (48.4%) : 112 (51.6%) | 55 (49.1%):57 (50.9%) | 60 (57.1%):45 (42.9%) | 0.236 |
| Age (years) | 65.17.8 | 55. 19.2 | 75.8.0 | <0.001 |
| Gait disturbance | 99 (45.6%) | 0 (0%) | 99 (94.3%) | <0.001 |
| Urinary incontinence | 77 (35.5%) | 0 (0%) | 77 (73.3%) | <0.001 |
| Memory impairment | 61 (28.1%) | 0 (0%) | 61 (58.1%) | <0.001 |
| HT* | 122 (56.2%) | 49 (43.8%) | 73 (69.5%) | <0.001 |
| T2DM | 72 (33.2%) | 26 (23.2%) | 46 (43.8%) | <0.001 |
| DLP | 80 (36.9%) | 42 (37.5%) | 38 (36.2%) | 0.842 |
| Old CVA | 42 (19.4%) | 21 (18.8%) | 21 (20.0%) | 0.816 |
| CKD | 21 (9.7%) | 1 (0.9%) | 10 (9.5%) | 0.941 |
| CAD | 20 (9.2%) | 8 (7.1%) | 12 (11.4%) | 0.275 |
| Parkinson’s disease | 23 (10.6%) | 0 (0%) | 23 (21.9%) | <0.001 |
| Dementia | 20 (9.2%) | 3 (2.7%) | 17 (16.2%) | <0.001 |
| OA knee | 11 (5.1%) | 6 (5.4%) | 5 (4.8%) | 0.842 |
| Variable |
1Crude OR* (95% CI)** |
P value |
2Adjusted OR (95% CI) |
P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evans’ index | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | ||
| 0 | Ref.*** | Ref. | ||
| 1 | 12.77 (4.68-34.88) | 3.49 (1.07-11.42) | ||
| 2 | 395.3 (73.91-2114.10) | 38.37 (6.04-243.56) | ||
| Dilatation of Sylvian fissures | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | ||
| 0 | Ref. | Ref. | ||
| 1 | 23.25 (11.12-48.62) | 3.07 (1.04-9.08) | ||
| Focally enlarged sulci | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | ||
| 0 | Ref. | Ref. | ||
| 1 | 25.499 (0.762-85.30) | 7.88 (1.28-48.25) | ||
| Widening temporal horns | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | ||
| 0 | Ref. | Ref. | ||
| 1 | 30 (12.83-70.13) | 5.35 (1.88-15.16) | ||
| 2 | 132 (28.86-603.79) | (2.15-73.31) |
| Total score | Normal | NPH | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 46 (100%) | 0 | < 0.0001 |
| 1 | 30 (96.8%) | 1 (3.2%) | < 0.0001 |
| 2 | 15 (75%) | 5 (25%) | 0.028 |
| 3 | 12 (63.2%) | 7 (36.8%) | 0.292 |
| 4 | 7 (38.9%) | 11 (61.1%) | 0.259 |
| 5 | 1 (5.6%) | 17 (94.4%) | < 0.0001 |
| 6 | 1 (5%) | 19 (95%) | < 0.0001 |
| 7 | 0 | 19 (100%) | < 0.0001 |
| 8 | 0 | 11 (100%) | < 0.0001 |
| 9 | 0 | 9 (100%) | 0.002 |
| 10 | 0 | 4 (100%) | 0.037 |
| 11 | 0 | 2 (100%) | 0.142 |
| 12 | 0 | 0 | N/A |
| Score | Result of predicted NPH |
|---|---|
| 0-2 | Negative |
| 3-4 | Borderline |
| ≥ 5 | Positive |
| Variables | Radiologists | AI*** |
|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity | 77.14% | 99.05% |
| Specificity | 98.21% | 57.14% |
| NPV* | 82.09% | 98.46% |
| PPV** | 97.59% | 68.42% |
| accuracy | 88.02% | 77.42% |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).