Instrumented gait analysis for an objective pre-/postassessment of tap test in normal pressure hydrocephalus.

OBJECTIVE To present an objective method to evaluate gait improvements after a tap test in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (INPH). DESIGN Retrospective analysis of gait data. SETTING Public tertiary care center, day hospital. The gait analysis was performed before and 2 to 4 hours after the tap test. PARTICIPANTS Participants included patients with INPH (n=60) and age- and sex-matched controls (n=50; used to obtain reference intervals). From an initial referred sample of 79 patients (N=79), we excluded those unable to walk without walking aids (n=9) and those with incomplete (pre-/posttap test) gait data (n=10). Thirteen out of 60 patients were shunted and then reappraised after 6 months. INTERVENTIONS Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Mahalanobis distance from controls, before and after the tap test. Eleven gait parameters were combined in a single quantitative score. Walking velocity was also evaluated because it is frequently used in tap test assessment. RESULTS Patients were classified into 2 groups: tap test responders (n=22, 9 of them were shunted) and not suitable for shunt (n=38, 4 of them were shunted). In the tap test responders group, 9 out of 9 patients improved after shunt. In the not suitable for shunt group, 3 out of 4 patients did not improve. Gait velocity increased after the tap test in 53% of responders and in 37% of patients not suitable for shunt. CONCLUSIONS The new method is applicable to clinical practice and allows for selecting tap test responders in an objective way, quantifying the improvements. Our results suggest that gait velocity alone is not sufficient to reliably assess tap test effects.

[1]  J. Perry,et al.  Gait Analysis , 2024 .

[2]  J. Schwalb,et al.  Normal pressure hydrocephalus: Diagnosis and treatment , 2008, Current neurology and neuroscience reports.

[3]  G. Gallia,et al.  The diagnosis and treatment of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus , 2006, Nature Clinical Practice Neurology.

[4]  M Illert,et al.  Gait analysis in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus – which parameters respond to the CSF tap test? , 2000, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[5]  G. Rosseau Normal pressure hydrocephalus. , 2011, Disease-a-month : DM.

[6]  P. Bugalho,et al.  Gait dysfunction in Parkinson’s disease and normal pressure hydrocephalus: a comparative study , 2013, Journal of Neural Transmission.

[7]  Valentina Agostini,et al.  Segmentation and Classification of Gait Cycles , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[8]  A. Unterberg,et al.  The differential diagnosis and treatment of normal-pressure hydrocephalus. , 2012, Deutsches Arzteblatt international.

[9]  Houeto Jean-Luc [Parkinson's disease]. , 2022, La Revue du praticien.

[10]  P. Bugalho,et al.  Gait disturbance in normal pressure hydrocephalus: a clinical study. , 2007, Parkinsonism & related disorders.

[11]  J. Chazal,et al.  Is normal pressure hydrocephalus a valid concept in 2002? A reappraisal in five questions and proposal for a new designation of the syndrome as “chronic hydrocephalus” , 2002, Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry.

[12]  M Illert,et al.  Comparative analysis of the gait disorder of normal pressure hydrocephalus and Parkinson's disease , 2001, Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry.

[13]  P. Hellström,et al.  One‐year outcome in the European multicentre study on iNPH , 2012, Acta neurologica Scandinavica.

[14]  Valentina Agostini,et al.  Statistical gait analysis , 2012 .

[15]  N. Kitchen,et al.  Natural history of idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus , 2011, Neurosurgical Review.

[16]  K. Ishii,et al.  Guidelines for management of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: second edition. , 2012, Neurologia medico-chirurgica.

[17]  Alfred D. Grant Gait Analysis: Normal and Pathological Function , 2010 .

[18]  N. Relkin,et al.  Features of gait most responsive to tap test in normal pressure hydrocephalus , 2008, Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery.

[19]  Marvin Bergsneider,et al.  The Value of Supplemental Prognostic Tests for the Preoperative Assessment of Idiopathic Normal-pressure Hydrocephalus , 2005, Neurosurgery.

[20]  M. Benedetti,et al.  Self-reported gait unsteadiness in mildly impaired neurological patients: an objective assessment through statistical gait analysis , 2012, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[21]  Saltelli Andrea,et al.  Global Sensitivity Analysis: The Primer , 2008 .

[22]  M Knaflitz,et al.  Normative EMG activation patterns of school-age children during gait. , 2010, Gait & posture.

[23]  J. Suri,et al.  Distributed diagnosis and home healthcare (D2H2). Vol. 2 , 2011 .

[24]  M. Ishikawa,et al.  [Normal pressure hydrocephalus]. , 2001, Nihon rinsho. Japanese journal of clinical medicine.

[25]  P. Black,et al.  Outcome of Shunting in Idiopathic Normal-pressure Hydrocephalus and the Value of Outcome Assessment in Shunted Patients , 2005, Neurosurgery.

[26]  Marvin Bergsneider,et al.  Development of Guidelines for Idiopathic Normal-pressure Hydrocephalus: Introduction , 2005, Neurosurgery.

[27]  K. Cesarini,et al.  The CSF tap test in normal pressure hydrocephalus: evaluation time, reliability and the influence of pain , 2012, European journal of neurology.

[28]  Xiaobo Zhou,et al.  Global Sensitivity Analysis , 2017, Encyclopedia of GIS.

[29]  P. Hellström,et al.  The European iNPH Multicentre Study on the predictive values of resistance to CSF outflow and the CSF Tap Test in patients with idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus , 2012, Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry.

[30]  Valentina Agostini,et al.  Gait parameters and muscle activation patterns at 3, 6 and 12 months after total hip arthroplasty. , 2014, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[31]  N. Graff-Radford NORMAL PRESSURE HYDROCEPHALUS , 2007, JAMA.

[32]  Daniele Rigamonti,et al.  Objective Assessment of Gait in Normal-Pressure Hydrocephalus , 2008, American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation.

[33]  D. Massart,et al.  The Mahalanobis distance , 2000 .

[34]  O. Beauchet,et al.  Dual-task related gait changes after CSF tapping: a new way to identify idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus , 2013, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[35]  Harvey M. Wagner,et al.  Global Sensitivity Analysis , 1995, Oper. Res..