Shows a structured diagnostic pathway improves outcomes in iNPH patients, indicating enhanced care.
Introduction: Idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH) is a reversible neurological condition characterized by gait disorders, cognitive impairment and urinary incontinence with ventriculomegaly at brain imaging. Due to the diagnostic complexity, we developed a structured multidisciplinary protocol to improve iNPH diagnosis. We present here the results of the first year after its implementation. Methods: A multidisciplinary team involving neurosurgeons, physical therapists, neuropsychologists and neurologists at the Lausanne University Hospitals (Switzerland) organized a diagnostic path with the following steps: first neurological assessment at the Leenaards Memory Center, neuropsychological assessment, CSF tap test with physiotherapeutic evaluation before and 24 hours after the CSF tap-test, post-CSF tap test interdisciplinary consultation with a neurosurgeon and a neurologist, and an interdisciplinary board. In case of neurosurgical treatment, interdisciplinary consultations took place at 6 weeks, 6 and 12 months. Results: This retrospective analysis included 86 patients (mean age: 76.26 9.08 years; 32.6% female) evaluated between June 2024 and May 2025. Gait disorders were the most common complaint (94.2% of the patients) followed by cognitive (75.6%) and urinary (60.5%) complaints. After initial investigations, the Board evaluated 44 candidates and recommended ventriculo-peritoneal shunting for 27 patients. So far, 16 patients have been operated. 92% reported gait improvement at 6 weeks postoperative control. Patients above 80 years of age reported more often gait improvement than patients below 80 years. Conclusion: The Lausanne’s protocol demonstrates a feasible, structured, simplified and efficient diagnostic pathway for iNPH, especially for the oldest patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Morel et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: