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: Sign in with your AAN member credentials (e-mail or 6-digit Member ID number)
Non-AAN Member subscribers: Sign in with subscriber credentials
Log in using your username and password
Purchase access
Disputes & Debates: Rapid online correspondence
NOTE: All authors' disclosures must be entered and current in our database before comments can be posted. Enter and update disclosures at http://submit.neurology.org. Exception: replies to comments concerning an article you originally authored do not require updated disclosures.
- Stay timely. Submit only on articles published within the last 8 weeks.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- 200 words maximum.
- 5 references maximum. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- 5 authors maximum. Exception: replies can include all original authors of the article.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.