Download PDF
Klin Monbl Augenheilkd 2015; 232(4): 467-470
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1545711
Klinische Studie
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Measurement of Optic Nerve Sheath Diameter: Differences between Methods? A Pilot Study

Messung des Optikusscheidendurchmessers: Unterschiede zwischen den Methoden? Eine Pilotstudie
C. Giger-Tobler
1   University Hospital Zurich, Department of Ophthalmology, Zurich, Switzerland (Chair: Prof. Klara Landau)
2   Rücken- & Schmerz-Praxis, Gümligen, Switzerland (Owner: Christian Giger-Tobler)
,
J. Eisenack
1   University Hospital Zurich, Department of Ophthalmology, Zurich, Switzerland (Chair: Prof. Klara Landau)
,
D. Holzmann
3   University Hospital Zurich, Department of ENL, Zurich, Switzerland (Chair: Prof. Rudolf Probst)
,
A. Pangalu
4   University Hospital Zurich, Department of Neuroradiology, Zurich, Switzerland (Chair: Prof. Anton Valavanis)
,
V. Sturm
5   Cantonal Hospital of St.Gallen, Department of Ophthalmology, St. Gallen, Switzerland (Chair: PD Dr. Christophe Valmaggia)
,
H. E. Killer
6   Cantonal Hospital of Aarau, Department of Ophthalmology, Aarau, Switzerland (Chair: Prof. Hanspeter E. Killer)
,
K. Landau
1   University Hospital Zurich, Department of Ophthalmology, Zurich, Switzerland (Chair: Prof. Klara Landau)
,
G. P. Jaggi
1   University Hospital Zurich, Department of Ophthalmology, Zurich, Switzerland (Chair: Prof. Klara Landau)
7   Augenarzt Obwalden, Sarnen, Switzerland (Owner: Dr. Gregor P. Jaggi)
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
22 April 2015 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background: Quantification of the optic nerve sheath diameter is a promising approach for the detection of elevated intracranial pressure. The comparability of current methods is unclear. The objective of this study was to assess the relationship between optic nerve sheath diameter as measured with computed tomography, magnetic resonance tomography and ultrasound in patients without known optic nerve disease or increased intracranial pressure.

Patients and Methods: 15 patients (60.8 [years] ± 16.73 SD; 7 female) with paranasal sinus pathology in whom computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging were performed underwent optic nerve sheath diameter measurements by ultrasound, as well as an ophthalmological examination. Ultrasound-, computed tomography- and magnetic resonance imaging-derived maximal optic nerve sheath diameter values 3 mm behind the globe were compared.

Results: Optic nerve sheath diameter measured (n = 30) by ultrasound (mean 6.2 [mm] ± 0.84 SD) was significantly (p < 0.01) higher than optic nerve sheath diameter in computed tomography (5.2 ± 1.11) or magnetic resonance imaging (5.3 ± 1.14). There was no significant (p = 0.24) difference between optic nerve sheath diameter measured in computed tomography and magnetic resonance tomography.

Conclusions: The comparability of optic nerve sheath diameter measurements in patients without known optic nerve disease and assumed normal intracranial pressure appears to be given between computed tomography and magnetic resonance tomography, while comparability between ultrasound and computed tomography or magnetic resonance tomography seems to be less reliable.

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund: Die Messung des Optikusscheidendurchmessers mit Frage nach intrakranieller Druckerhöhung wird zunehmend propagiert. Die Vergleichbarkeit der verfügbaren Methoden ist unklar. Diese Studie vergleicht die Optikusscheidendurchmesser gemessen mittels Computertomografie, Magnetresonanztomografie und Ultraschall bei Patienten ohne bekannte Pathologie des Nervus opticus oder erhöhtem Hirndruck.

Patienten und Methoden: Bei 15 Patienten (60,8 [J] ± 16,73 SD; 7 Frauen) mit Nasennebenhöhlen-Pathologie und vorliegender Computertomografie und Magnetresonanztomografie wurde eine Ultraschalluntersuchung mit Optikusscheidendurchmesser-Messung und eine umfassende Augenuntersuchung durchgeführt. Die maximalen Optikusscheidendurchmesser aus Computertomografie, Magnetresonanztomografie und Ultraschall, jeweils 3 mm hinter dem Bulbus, wurden verglichen.

Ergebnisse: Die Optikusscheidendurchmesser (n = 30) gemessen mit Ultraschall (Mittelwert 6,2 [mm] ± 0,84 SD) waren signifikant (p < 0,01) größer als die Optikusscheidendurchmesser in Computertomografie (5,2 ± 1,11) oder Magnetresonanztomografie (5,3 ± 1,14). Computertomografie und Magnetresonanztomografie unterschieden sich nicht signifikant (p = 0,24).

Schlussfolgerungen: Bei Patienten ohne bekannte Pathologie des Nervus opticus oder erhöhtem Hirndruck scheint die Vergleichbarkeit von Optikusscheidendurchmesser-Messungen mittels Computertomografie und Magnetresonanztomografie gegeben, während die Vergleichbarkeit von Computertomografie und Ultraschall sowie Magnetresonanztomografie und Ultraschall weniger zuverlässig erscheint.

Schlüsselwörter

Optikusscheidendurchmesser - Computertomografie - Magnetresonanztomografie - Ultraschall

Key words

optic nerve sheath diameter - computed tomography - magnetic resonance imaging - ultrasound
 

  • References

  • 1 Soldatos T, Chatzimichail K, Papathanasiou M et al. Optic nerve sonography: a new window for the non-invasive evaluation of intracranial pressure in brain injury. Emerg Med J 2009; 26: 630-634
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Watanabe A, Kinouchi H, Horikoshi T et al. Effect of intracranial pressure on the diameter of the optic nerve sheath. J Neurosurg 2008; 109: 255-258
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Sutherland AI, Morris DS, Owen CG et al. Optic nerve sheath diameter, intracranial pressure and acute mountain sickness on Mount Everest: a longitudinal cohort study. Br J Sports Med 2008; 42: 183-188
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Kimberly HH, Noble VE. Using MRI of the optic nerve sheath to detect elevated intracranial pressure. Crit Care 2008; 12: 181
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Killer HE, Jaggi GP, Flammer J et al. Cerebrospinal fluid dynamics between the intracranial and the subarachnoid space of the optic nerve. Is it always bidirectional?. Brain 2007; 130: 514-520
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Spencer WH. Ophthalmic Pathology: an Atlas and Textbook. 3rd. edn. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1986: 2337-2458
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Liu D, Kahn M. Measurement and relationship of subarachnoid pressure of the optic nerve to intracranial pressures in fresh cadavers. Am J Ophthalmol 1993; 116 (Suppl. 05) S548-S556
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Steinborn M, Friedmann M, Hahn H et al. Normal values for transbulbar sonography and magnetic resonance imaging of the optic nerve sheath diameter (ONSD) in children and adolescents. Ultraschall Med 2015; 36: 54-58
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Kalantari H, Jaiswal R, Bruck I et al. Correlation of optic nerve sheath diameter measurements by computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Emerg Med 2013; 31 (Suppl. 11) S1595-S1597
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Maude RR, Hossain MA, Hassan MU et al. Transorbital sonographic evaluation of normal optic nerve sheath diameter in healthy volunteers in Bangladesh. PLoS ONE DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0081013.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Bäuerle J, Schuchardt F, Schroeder L et al. Reproducibility and accuracy of optic nerve sheath diameter assessment using ultrasound compared to magnetic resonance imaging. BMC Neurology 2013; 13: 187
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1: 307-310
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Brown BS. How safe is diagnostic ultrasonography. Can Med Assoc J 1984; 131: 307-311
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Weigel M, Lagrèze WA, Lazzaro A et al. Fast and quantitative high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging of the optic nerve at 3.0 tesla. Invest Radiol 2006; 41: 83-86
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar