Is intracranial pressure monitoring in the epidural space reliable? Fact and fiction

Author:

Poca Maria Antonia,Sahuquillo Juan,Topczewski Thomaz,Peñarrubia Maria Jesús,Muns Asunción

Abstract

Object Epidural pressures have been reported as being systematically higher than ventricular fluid pressures. These discrepancies have been attributed both to the characteristics of the sensor and to the particular anatomy of the epidural space. To determine which of these two possible causes better explains higher epidural readings, the authors compared pressure values obtained during simultaneous epidural and lumbar pressure monitoring in 53 patients and during simultaneous subdural and lumbar pressure monitoring in 22 patients. The same nonfluid coupled sensor device was used in all compartments. Methods All 75 patients had normal craniospinal communication. Simultaneous intracranial and lumbar readings were performed every 30 seconds. The epidural–lumbar and subdural–lumbar pressure values were compared using correlation analysis and the Bland–Altman method. The median differences in initial epidural–lumbar and subdural–lumbar pressure values were 11 mm Hg (interquartile range 2–24 mm Hg) and 0 mm Hg (interquartile range −2 to 1 mm Hg), respectively. The correlation coefficients of the mean epidural–lumbar and subdural–lumbar intracranial pressure (ICP) values were ρ = 0.48 (p < 0.001) and ρ = 0.88 (p < 0.001), respectively. Using the Bland–Altman analysis, epidural–lumbar methods showed a mean difference of −20.93 mm Hg; epidural pressure values were systematically higher than lumbar values, and these discrepancies were greater with higher ICP values. Subdural–lumbar methods showed a mean difference of 0.35 mm Hg and both were equally valid with all mean ICP values. Conclusions Epidural ICP monitoring produces artifactually high values. These values are not related to the type of sensor used but to the specific characteristics of the epidural intracranial space.

Publisher

Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group (JNSPG)

Cited by 34 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Hybrid Convolutional and Recurrent Neural Network for Non-Invasive Intracranial Pressure Estimation from Cerebral Blood Flow;Optica Biophotonics Congress: Biomedical Optics 2024 (Translational, Microscopy, OCT, OTS, BRAIN);2024

2. Non-invasive ICP Monitoring by Auditory System Measurements;Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology;2023

3. Intracranial Pressure Monitoring;Koht, Sloan, Toleikis's Monitoring the Nervous System for Anesthesiologists and Other Health Care Professionals;2022-12-01

4. Transcranial optical monitoring for detecting intracranial pressure alterations in children with benign external hydrocephalus: a proof-of-concept study;Neurophotonics;2022-11-17

5. Non-Invasive Estimation of Intracranial Pressure by Diffuse Optics: A Proof-of-Concept Study;Journal of Neurotrauma;2020-12-01

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3