Poca Maria Antonia, Sahuquillo Juan, Topczewski Thomaz, Peñarrubia Maria Jesús, Muns Asunción
Department of Neurosurgery, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain.
J Neurosurg. 2007 Apr;106(4):548-56. doi: 10.3171/jns.2007.106.4.548.
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.
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 p = 0.48 (p < 0.001) and p = 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.
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.
据报道,硬膜外压力系统性地高于脑室液压力。这些差异既归因于传感器的特性,也归因于硬膜外间隙的特殊解剖结构。为了确定这两个可能原因中哪一个能更好地解释硬膜外读数较高的情况,作者比较了53例患者同时进行硬膜外和腰椎压力监测以及22例患者同时进行硬膜下和腰椎压力监测时获得的压力值。所有腔室均使用相同的非液耦传感器装置。
所有75例患者的颅脊髓连通正常。每30秒同时进行颅内和腰椎读数。使用相关分析和布兰德 - 奥特曼方法比较硬膜外 - 腰椎和硬膜下 - 腰椎压力值。硬膜外 - 腰椎和硬膜下 - 腰椎初始压力值的中位数差异分别为11 mmHg(四分位间距2 - 24 mmHg)和0 mmHg(四分位间距 - 2至1 mmHg)。硬膜外 - 腰椎和硬膜下 - 腰椎平均颅内压(ICP)值的相关系数分别为p = 0.48(p < 0.001)和p = 0.88(p < 0.001)。使用布兰德 - 奥特曼分析,硬膜外 - 腰椎方法显示平均差异为 - 20.93 mmHg;硬膜外压力值系统性地高于腰椎值,且随着ICP值升高这些差异更大。硬膜下 - 腰椎方法显示平均差异为0.35 mmHg,且在所有平均ICP值下两者同样有效。
硬膜外ICP监测产生人为的高值。这些值与所用传感器类型无关,而是与硬膜外颅内空间的特定特征有关。