This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
Abstract
Objective To test whether quantitative gait analysis of gait under single- and dual-task conditions can be used for a differential diagnosis of progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP) and idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH).
Methods In this cross-sectional study, temporal and spatial gait parameters were analyzed in 38 patients with PSP (Neurological Disorders and Stroke and Society for Progressive Supranuclear Palsy diagnostic criteria), 27 patients with iNPH (international iNPH guidelines), and 38 healthy controls. A pressure-sensitive carpet was used to examine gait under 5 conditions: single task (preferred, slow, and maximal speed), cognitive dual task (walking with serial 7 subtractions), and motor dual task (walking while carrying a tray).
Results The main results were as follows. First, both patients with PSP and those with iNPH exhibited significant gait dysfunction, which was worse in patients with iNPH with a more broad-based gait (p < 0.001). Second, stride time variability was increased in both patient groups, more pronounced in PSP (p = 0.009). Third, cognitive dual task led to a greater reduction of gait velocity in PSP (PSP 34.4% vs iNPH 16.9%, p = 0.002). Motor dual task revealed a dissociation of gait performance: patients with PSP considerably worsened, but patients with iNPH tended to improve.
Conclusion Patients with PSP seem to be more sensitive to dual-task perturbations than patients with iNPH. An increased step width and anisotropy of the effect of dual-task conditions (cognitive vs motor) seem to be good diagnostic tools for iNPH.
Glossary
- CERAD=
- Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease;
- CV=
- coefficient of variation;
- HS=
- healthy controls;
- iNPH=
- idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus;
- PD=
- Parkinson disease;
- PSP=
- progressive supranuclear palsy
Footnotes
Go to Neurology.org/N for full disclosures. Funding information and disclosures deemed relevant by the authors, if any, are provided at the end of the article.
- Received July 13, 2017.
- Accepted in final form December 22, 2017.
- © 2018 American Academy of Neurology
AAN Members
We have changed the login procedure to improve access between AAN.com and the Neurology journals. If you are experiencing issues, please log out of AAN.com and clear history and cookies. (For instructions by browser, please click the instruction pages below). After clearing, choose preferred Journal and select login for AAN Members. You will be redirected to a login page where you can log in with your AAN ID number and password. When you are returned to the Journal, your name should appear at the top right of the page.
AAN Non-Member Subscribers
Purchase access
Disputes & Debates: Rapid online correspondence
REQUIREMENTS
If you are uploading a letter concerning an article:
You must have updated your disclosures within six months: http://submit.neurology.org
Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.
If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.
Submission specifications:
- Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
- Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.