Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Publication Preview--Ahead of Print
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • COVID-19 Content and Resources
  • For Authors
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editors
    • American Society of Neuroradiology
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Podcasts
    • Subscribe on iTunes
    • Subscribe on Stitcher
  • More
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Other Publications
    • ajnr

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Journal of Neuroradiology
American Journal of Neuroradiology

American Journal of Neuroradiology

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Publication Preview--Ahead of Print
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • COVID-19 Content and Resources
  • For Authors
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editors
    • American Society of Neuroradiology
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Podcasts
    • Subscribe on iTunes
    • Subscribe on Stitcher
  • More
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Follow AJNR on Twitter
  • Visit AJNR on Facebook
  • Follow AJNR on Instagram
  • Join AJNR on LinkedIn
  • RSS Feeds
LetterLetter

Toward a Better Understanding of Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus

GA Bateman
American Journal of Neuroradiology March 2001, 22 (3) 596;
GA Bateman
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

I read with interest the commentary and extensive literature review published by Bradley (1), but wish to reply to some of the comments made regarding my article on normal pressure hydrocephalus (NPH) (2). I will discuss the comments made regarding control selection, cardiac gating, and the selective measurement of the superior sagittal and straight sinus flow as well as those regarding the cause of the venous compression and the physiology of CSF aqueduct flow.

The selection of a non-biased control group is important. The problem with investigating patients in their seventh and eighth decades centers on knowing what is normal. The complete lack of any cerebral pathologic abnormality is aberrant for an 80-year-old individual. Is the cerebral pathologic abnormality normally found in the average person of this age allowable in a control group? The second control group I used contained patients with atrophy, ischemia, or both. I believe that, although not physically “normal”, these people are a better group for comparison.

It is true that prospective cardiac gating does not measure the final 100 milliseconds of the cardiac cycle, but systole was the main focus. The effect of prospective gating on the results was to slightly overestimate the mean blood flow because the end diastolic flow, which is missed, is lower than the mean. This has the effect of slightly overestimating the pulsations in all patients, but as a reduction in pulsations was found in the test patients, any attempt to allow for this effect would only have increased the findings, not diminished them.

The question of measuring whole-brain blood flow was addressed on page 1581 of the article (2). In addition, as the deep and superficial vascular territories seem to be affected in opposite ways by NPH, adding them together would blur the effect.

Bradley asks the question, “What causes the previously normal venous resistance to become elevated in elderly patients?” and goes on to mention the Monroe-Kellie doctrine (1). The Monroe-Kellie doctrine is the very reason that the venous resistance must rise if spinal canal compliance is reduced. If the intracranial volume is fixed and brain and arterial expansion occur, then either CSF must be expelled in equal volume or the venous compartment compromised. As the amount of CSF shifted from the cranial cavity in NPH patients is about half of that of similar patients with atrophy, the veins must be compressed by a similar amount. The flow through a vessel is dependent on the forth power of the radius; even a small reduction in caliber can cause significantly raised resistance. Perhaps a better question would be: “Why is the spinal compliance altered”?

The physiology of the aqueduct flow involves a combination of cerebral expansion and the difference between superficial versus deep brain compliance. The total CSF leaving the incisura of the tentorium is approximately 330 μL (3) compared with the aqueduct flow of 30 μL (4). Both are occurring because of brain expansion. Given that the brain is essentially a hollow sphere and that curved surfaces resist compressive forces, it is understandable that when the brain parenchyma expands in systole, there is 10 times more outward expansion than inward compression. Expanding inward would compress the parenchyma adjacent to the ependyma. If in NPH the superficial parenchyma is not compliant, then a greater percentage of the pulsation must be directed toward the ventricles. Bradley surmises in late NPH that irreversible small vessel (probably arteriolar) occlusions occur (1). Because occluded vessels do not pulsate, the aqueduct flow would be expected to drop with irreversible vessel loss, irrespective of the state of spinal compliance. The problem is the associated atrophy. My article supports the view that in NPH there is underlying atrophy, which is masked by the increased interstitial fluid. The atrophic control patients without hydrocephalus all showed increased pulsations throughout their brain regions and in their aqueduct flows. Thus, small- vessel occlusion (ischemia) and loss of parenchymal volume with preserved vessel patency (atrophy) may have opposite effects on brain pulsations. As atrophy is masked by increased interstitial fluid in late NPH, the developing irreversible ischemia reduces aqueduct flow. If a patient with pure atrophy and no significant small-vessel occlusion is mistaken for a patient with NPH (as may occur in early Alzheimer disease), then the increased aqueduct flow may be misleading.

I agree with Bradley's final point: larger studies are required to verify my hypothesis that NPH is caused by venous compromise.

References

  1. ↵
    Bradley WG. Normal pressure hydrocephalus: new concepts on etiology and diagnosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2000;21:1586-1590
    FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    Bateman GA. Vascular compliance in normal pressure hydrocephalus. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2000;21:1574-1585
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    Greitz D. Cerebrospinal fluid circulation and associated intra-cranial dynamics. Acta Radiol Suppl 1993;34:1-21
  4. ↵
    Enzmann DR, Pelc NJ. Cerebrospinal fluid flow measured by phase-contrast cine MR. AJNR AM J Neuroradiol 1993;14:1301-1307
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  • Copyright © American Society of Neuroradiology
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

American Journal of Neuroradiology
Vol. 22, Issue 3
1 Mar 2001
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Advertisement
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Journal of Neuroradiology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Toward a Better Understanding of Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Journal of Neuroradiology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Journal of Neuroradiology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Toward a Better Understanding of Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus
GA Bateman
American Journal of Neuroradiology Mar 2001, 22 (3) 596;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Toward a Better Understanding of Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus
GA Bateman
American Journal of Neuroradiology Mar 2001, 22 (3) 596;
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Crossref
  • Google Scholar

This article has not yet been cited by articles in journals that are participating in Crossref Cited-by Linking.

More in this TOC Section

  • Fair Performance of CT in Diagnosing Unilateral Vocal Fold Paralysis
  • Reply:
  • Regarding “Altered Blood Flow in the Ophthalmic and Internal Carotid Arteries in Patients with Age-Related Macular Degeneration Measured Using Noncontrast MR Angiography at 7T”
Show more Letter

Similar Articles

Advertisement

News and Updates

  • Lucien Levy Best Research Article Award
  • Thanks to our 2022 Distinguished Reviewers
  • Press Releases

Resources

  • Evidence-Based Medicine Level Guide
  • How to Participate in a Tweet Chat
  • AJNR Podcast Archive
  • Ideas for Publicizing Your Research
  • Librarian Resources
  • Terms and Conditions

Opportunities

  • Share Your Art in Perspectives
  • Get Peer Review Credit from Publons
  • Moderate a Tweet Chat

American Society of Neuroradiology

  • Neurographics
  • ASNR Annual Meeting
  • Fellowship Portal
  • Position Statements

© 2023 by the American Society of Neuroradiology | Print ISSN: 0195-6108 Online ISSN: 1936-959X

Powered by HighWire