Evaluation of Hydrocephalus and its Types on Computed Tomography: Hydrocephalus and its Types on Computed Tomography

Amina  Sharif Bhatti; Akash  John; Abid Ali; Urwa  Nasir; Nayyar  Ashfaq; Mahnoor  Akram

doi:10.54393/tt.v3i1.34

Authors

Amina Sharif Bhatti Department of Allied Health Sciences ,University Institute of Radiological Sciences and Medical Imaging, The University of Chenab, Gujrat,Pakistan
Akash John Department of Allied Health Sciences ,University Institute of Radiological Sciences and Medical Imaging, The University of Chenab, Gujrat,Pakistan
Abid Ali Department of Allied Health Sciences ,University Institute of Radiological Sciences and Medical Imaging, The University of Chenab, Gujrat,Pakistan
Urwa Nasir Department of Allied Health Sciences ,University Institute of Radiological Sciences and Medical Imaging, The University of Chenab, Gujrat,Pakistan
Nayyar Ashfaq Department of Allied Health Sciences ,University Institute of Radiological Sciences and Medical Imaging, The University of Chenab, Gujrat,Pakistan
Mahnoor Akram Department of Allied Health Sciences ,University Institute of Radiological Sciences and Medical Imaging, The University of Chenab, Gujrat,Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54393/tt.v3i1.34

Abstract

Hydrocephalus is the buildup of cerebrospinal fluid in the ventricles of the brain. The extra fluid exerts pressure on the brain. It can be due to genetic issues, Head trauma, infection, stroke, tumors, and bleeding in the brain. Objective: To evaluate hydrocephalus and its type on Computed Tomography. Methods: The study was conducted in a Govt sector tertiary care hospital of tehsil Kharian, district Gujrat, Pakistan. The data was collected from December 2021 to March 2022 using convenient sampling technique. A sample size of 70 patients was considered as per convenience. The patients of hydrocephalus who undergo brain scan plain were included. The data was collected after informed consent. Data were entered and analyzed using SPSS version 20.0. Results: This study revealed that females 40(57.1%) were more likely to have hydrocephalus than males 30(42.9%). The common age group having hydrocephalus was 1-10years 23(32.9%). The most frequent finding evaluated was non-communicating hydrocephalus 36(51.4%). The most common effects in hydrocephalus was congenital dilatation of the third ventricle and two lateral ventricles 40(57.1%). Conclusion: In conclusion, CT is the best modality for diagnosing hydrocephalus in children as well as in elders. CT is a useful imaging method for visualizing congenital hydrocephalus.

References

Alhussain AMA. A Study of Hydrocephalus Using CT scan: Sudan University of Science and Technology; 2018.

Faubel R, Westendorf C, Bodenschatz E, Eichele G. Cilia-based flow network in the brain ventricles. Science. 2016 Jul; 353(6295):176-8. doi: 10.1126/science.aae0450.

Metheny N. Fluid and electrolyte balance: Jones & Bartlett Publishers; 2012.

Toma AK. Hydrocephalus. Surgery (Oxford). 2015 Aug; 33(8):384-389.

Garne E, Loane M, Addor M-C, Boyd PA, Barisic I, Dolk H. Congenital hydrocephalus–prevalence, prenatal diagnosis and outcome of pregnancy in four European regions. european journal of paediatric neurology. 2010 Mar; 14(2):150-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ejpn.2009.03.005.

Pan P. Outcome analysis of ventriculoperitoneal shunt surgery in pediatric hydrocephalus. Journal of pediatric neurosciences. 2018 Jun; 13(2):176-181. doi: 10.4103/jpn.JPN_29_18.

Kammersgaard LP, Linnemann M, Tibæk M. Hydrocephalus following severe traumatic brain injury in adults. Incidence, timing, and clinical predictors during rehabilitation. NeuroRehabilitation. 2013; 33(3):473-80. doi: 10.3233/NRE-130980.

Orešković D, Klarica M. Development of hydrocephalus and classical hypothesis of cerebrospinal fluid hydrodynamics: facts and illusions. Progress in neurobiology. 2011 Aug; 94(3):238-58. doi: 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2011.05.005.

Lun MP, Monuki ES, Lehtinen MK. Development and functions of the choroid plexus–cerebrospinal fluid system. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 2015 Aug; 16(8):445-57. doi: 10.1038/nrn3921.

Langner S, Fleck S, Baldauf J, Mensel B, Kühn JP, Kirsch M, editors. Diagnosis and differential diagnosis of hydrocephalus in adults. RöFo-Fortschritte auf dem Gebiet der Röntgenstrahlen und der bildgebenden Verfahren; Rofo. 2017 Aug; 189(8):728-739. English. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-108550.

Orešković D, Radoš M, Klarica M. Role of choroid plexus in cerebrospinal fluid hydrodynamics. Neuroscience. 2017 Jun; 354:69-87. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2017.04.025.

Sakka L, Coll G, Chazal J. Anatomy and physiology of cerebrospinal fluid. European annals of otorhinolaryngology, head and neck diseases. 2011 Dec; 128(6):309-16. doi: 10.1016/j.anorl.2011.03.002.

Stadlbauer A, Salomonowitz E, Brenneis C, Ungersböck K, van der Riet W, Buchfelder M, et al. Magnetic resonance velocity mapping of 3D cerebrospinal fluid flow dynamics in hydrocephalus: preliminary results. European radiology. 2012 Jan; 22(1):232-42. doi: 10.1007/s00330-011-2247-7.

Oi S. Hydrocephalus Research Update—Controversies in Definition and Classification of Hydrocephalus—. Neurologia medico-chirurgica. 2010; 50(9):859-69. doi: 10.2176/nmc.50.859.

MoNtaNo N, D'Alessandris QG, BiaNchi F, Lauretti L, Doglietto F, Fernandez E, et al. Communicating hydrocephalus following surgery and adjuvant radiochemotherapy for glioblastoma. Journal of neurosurgery. 2011 Dec; 115(6):1126-30. doi: 10.3171/2011.8.JNS11738.

Gholampour S. FSI simulation of CSF hydrodynamic changes in a large population of non-communicating hydrocephalus patients during treatment process with regard to their clinical symptoms. PLoS One. 2018 Apr; 13(4):e0196216. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0196216.

Kiefer M, Unterberg A. The differential diagnosis and treatment of normal-pressure hydrocephalus. Deutsches Ärzteblatt International. 2012 Jan; 109(1-2):15-25; quiz 26. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2012.0015.

Kim M, Park S-W, Lee J-Y, Kim H, Rhim JH, Park S, et al. Differences in Brain Morphology between Hydrocephalus Ex Vacuo and Idiopathic Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus. Psychiatry Investigation. 2021 Jul; 18(7):628-635. doi: 10.30773/pi.2020.0352.

Munch TN, Rasmussen M-LH, Wohlfahrt J, Juhler M, Melbye M. Risk factors for congenital hydrocephalus: a nationwide, register-based, cohort study. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry. 2014 Nov; 85(11):1253-9. doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2013-306941.

Giordan E, Palandri G, Lanzino G, Murad MH, Elder BD. Outcomes and complications of different surgical treatments for idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of neurosurgery. 2018 Nov: 1-13. doi: 10.3171/2018.5.JNS1875.

Bodilsen J, Schønheyder HC, Nielsen H. Hydrocephalus is a rare outcome in community-acquired bacterial meningitis in adults: a retrospective analysis. BMC Infectious Diseases. 2013 Jul; 13:321. doi: 10.1186/1471-2334-13-321.

Vogel TW, Bahuleyan B, Robinson S, Cohen AR. The role of endoscopic third ventriculostomy in the treatment of hydrocephalus. Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics. 2013 Jul; 12(1):54-61. doi: 10.3171/2013.4.PEDS12481.

Harris CA, McAllister JP. What we should know about the cellular and tissue response causing catheter obstruction in the treatment of hydrocephalus. Neurosurgery. 2012 Jun; 70(6):1589-1602.

Lotan E, Damadian BE, Rusinek H, Griffin M, Ades-Aron B, Lu N, et al. Quantitative imaging features predict spinal tap response in normal pressure hydrocephalus. Neuroradiology. 2022 Mar; 64(3):473-481. doi: 10.1007/s00234-021-02782-z.

Schmidt H, Elster J, Eckert I, Wiefek J, Paulus W, von Steinbuechel N, et al. Cognitive functions after spinal tap in patients with normal pressure hydrocephalus. Journal of neurology. 2014 Dec; 261(12):2344-50. doi: 10.1007/s00415-014-7489-2.

Davies E, Connolly DJ, Mordekar SR. Encephalopathy in children: an approach to assessment and management. Archives of disease in childhood. 2012 May 1;97(5):452-8. doi.org/10.1136/adc.2011.300998