Introduction: Currently, the most often performed treatment for idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (INPH) is the ventriculoperitoneal shunt (VPS), mainly with programmable valve implantation. The endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV) is a treatment option, with the advantage of not needing prosthesis implantation. The aim is to compare the functional neurological outcome after 12 months of treatment of patients with INPH through two different techniques: ETV or VPS.

Methods: Trial Design: Randomised parallel, open label trial involving study of 42 patients with INPH and positive response to tap-test (TT), from January 2009 to January 2012. Interventions: ETV was performed with rigid endoscope with 30° lens (Minop®, AESCULAP) and VPS performed with fixed-pressure valve (PS Medical®, MEDTRONIC). The outcome occurs 12 months after surgery. The comparison of the neurological function outcome is carried out by the results of six clinical scales: mini-mental, Berg balance scale, dinamic gait index, functional independence measure, timed up and go and NPH scale.

Results: There was statistically significant difference between both groups after 12 months of follow-up, and VPS group showed the best improvement results (ETV = 50%, VPS = 76.9%).

Conclusions: Compared to ETV, VPS is superior and has the best functional neurological outcome 12 months after surgery.

Patient Care: The neurosurgeon must be aware that ETV can be used for treatment of NPH patients, but VPS is superior and has the best functional neurological outcome 12 months after surgery

Learning Objectives: By the conclusion of this session, participants should be able to describe the importance of these two kinds of surgery (VPS and ETV) and identify an effective treatment for NPH

References: 1. Adams RD, Fisher CM, Hakim S, Ojemann RG, Swett WH: Symptomatic occult hydrocephalus with "normal" cerebrospinal-fluid pressure: a treatable syndrome. N Engl J Med 273:117-126, 1965. 2. Hakim CA, Hakim R, Hakim S: Normal-pressure hydrocephalus. Neurosurg Clin N Am 12:761-773, ix, 2001. 3. Hakim S, Adams RD: The special clinical problem of symptomatic hydrocephalus with normal cerebrospinal fluid pressure. Observations on cerebrospinal fluid hydrodynamics. J Neurol Sci 2:307-327, 1965. 4. de Oliveira MF, Pinto FC, Nishikuni K, Botelho RV, Lima AM, Rotta JM: Revisiting hydrocephalus as a model to study brain resilience. Front Hum Neurosci 5:181, 2011. 5. Toma AK, Stapleton S, Papadopoulos MC, Kitchen ND, Watkins LD: Natural history of idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus. Neurosurg Rev 34:433-439, 2011. 6. Gangemi M, Maiuri F, Naddeo M et al: Endoscopic third ventriculostomy in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: an Italian multicenter study. Neurosurgery 63:62-67; discussion 67-69, 2008. 7. Boon AJ, Tans JT, Delwel EJ et al: Dutch Normal-Pressure Hydrocephalus Study: randomized comparison of low- and medium-pressure shunts. J Neurosurg 88:490-495, 1998.Berg KO, Wood-Dauphinee SL, Williams JI, Maki B: Measuring balance in the elderly: validation of an instrument. Can J Public Health 83 Suppl 2:S7-11, 1992. 8 McGirt MJ, Woodworth G, Coon AL, Thomas G, Williams MA, Rigamonti D: Diagnosis, treatment, and analysis of long-term outcomes in idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus. Neurosurgery 62 Suppl 2:670-677, 2008. 9. Mori K: Management of idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus: a multiinstitutional study conducted in Japan. J Neurosurg 95:970-973, 2001. 10. Petersen RC, Mokri B, Laws ER: Surgical treatment of idiopathic hydrocephalus in elderly patients. Neurology 35:307-311, 1985. 11. Vanneste J, Augustijn P, Dirven C, Tan WF, Goedhart ZD: Shunting normal-pressure hydrocephalus: do the benefits outweigh the risks? A multicenter study and literature review. Neurology 42:54-59, 1992. 12. Weiner HL, Constantini S, Cohen H, Wisoff JH: Current treatment of normal-pressure hydrocephalus: comparison of flow-regulated and differential-pressure shunt valves. Neurosurgery 37:877-884, 1995. 13. Zemack G, Romner B: Adjustable valves in normal-pressure hydrocephalus: a retrospective study of 218 patients. Neurosurgery 62 Suppl 2:677-687, 2008. 14. Marmarou A, Bergsneider M, Klinge P, Relkin N, Black PM: The value of supplemental prognostic tests for the preoperative assessment of idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus. Neurosurgery 57:S17-28; discussion ii-v, 2005. 15. Relkin N, Marmarou A, Klinge P, Bergsneider M, Black PM: Diagnosing idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus. Neurosurgery 57:S4-16; discussion ii-v, 2005. 16. Wikkelsö C, Andersson H, Blomstrand C, Lindqvist G, Svendsen P: Normal pressure hydrocephalus. Predictive value of the cerebrospinal fluid tap-test. Acta Neurol Scand 73:566-573, 1986. 17. Wikkelsø C, Andersson H, Blomstrand C, Lindqvist G: The clinical effect of lumbar puncture in normal pressure hydrocephalus. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 45:64-69, 1982. 18. Brucki SM, Nitrini R, Caramelli P, Bertolucci PH, Okamoto IH: [Suggestions for utilization of the mini-mental state examination in Brazil]. Arq Neuropsiquiatr 61:777-781, 2003. 19. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR: "Mini-mental state". A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 12:189-198, 1975. 20. Berg KO, Wood-Dauphinee SL, Williams JI, Maki B: Measuring balance in the elderly: validation of an instrument. Can J Public Health 83 Suppl 2:S7-11, 1992. 21. Miyamoto ST, Lombardi Junior I, Berg KO, Ramos LR, Natour J: Brazilian version of the Berg balance scale. Braz J Med Biol Res 37:1411-1421, 2004. 22. Desrosiers J, Rochette A, Noreau L, Bravo G, Hébert R, Boutin C: Comparison of two functional independence scales with a participation measure in post-stroke rehabilitation. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 37:157-172, 2003. 23. De Castro SM, Perracini MR, Ganança FF: Dynamic Gait Index--Brazilian version. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 72:817-825, 2006. 24. Podsiadlo D, Richardson S: The timed "Up & Go": a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J Am Geriatr Soc 39:142-148, 1991. 25. Rosner B. Fundamentals of Biostatistics. Belmont: Thomson Brooks, 2006. 868p. 26. Friedman L. M., Furberg C. D., DeMets D. L. Fundamentals of clinical trials. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1998. 361p. 27. Brean A, Eide PK: Prevalence of probable idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus in a Norwegian population. Acta Neurol Scand 118:48-53, 2008. 28. O'Kane MC, Richards H, Winfield P, Pickard JD: The United Kingdom Shunt Registry. Eur J Pediatr Surg 7 Suppl 1:56, 1997. 29. Kestle J, Drake J, Milner R, Sainte-Rose C, Cinalli G, Boop F, Piatt J, Haines S, Schiff S, Cochrane D, Steinbok P, MacNeil N: Long-term follow-up data from the Shunt Design Trial. Pediatr Neurosurg 33:230-236, 2000. 30. Huppert FA, Brayne C, Gill C, Paykel ES, Beardsall L. CAMCOG--a concise neuropsychological test to assist dementia diagnosis: socio-demographic determinants in an elderly population sample. Br J Clin Psychol. 1995 Nov;34 ( Pt 4):529-41. 31. Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V et al: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005 Apr;53(4):695-9. 32. Pinto FC, da Cunha Neto MB, Rocha MG, do Lago DV, Bronstein MD, Teixeira MJ: Hypopituitarism due to Hydrocephalus: Case Report and Review of the Literature. Pediatr Neurosurg 47:303-306, 2011.