Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of Three Point-of-Care Ultrasound Views and MRI Measurements for Optic Nerve Sheath Diameter: A Prospective Validity Study

  • Original Work
  • Published:
Neurocritical Care Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Letters to the editor to this article was published on 16 September 2022

Abstract

Introduction

Point-of-care ultrasound of the optic nerve sheath diameter (ONSD) to diagnose increased intracranial pressure (ICP) is of great interest in various clinical scenarios. Yet, the lack of examination standardization has made clinical utility difficult. We compare three ultrasound ocular plane views (inferior, sagittal, and transverse), which are currently used in the literature to evaluate their consistency. Comparisons for each view to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) measurements were also made.

Methods

Fifty-one patients with recent MRI of the brain, but without clinical or radiological signs of elevated ICP, were selected to undergo ocular sonography via three ultrasound planes (inferior, sagittal, and transverse). Optic nerve sheath was measured in each ultrasound view as well with MRI. Image quality scores were assigned for the ultrasound views in different orientations. The three ocular plane views were analyzed for correlation. In addition, correlation of the three ocular ultrasound views with MRI was also performed.

Results

Correlation analysis showed a wide variability in the correlation between different ultrasound views with magnitude range of 0.1 to 0.8 and directions being both positive and negative. There was a difference in image quality scores between the ultrasound views. The inferior and transverse orientations were superior to the sagittal orientation in achieving high image quality. Comparison to MRI measurements did not demonstrate a significant correlation.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that absolute measurements should not be compared across different ultrasound orientations given the wide variability in the correlation between the ultrasound views used to assess the optic nerve sheath. The inferior and transverse ultrasound views are the most likely to yield high-quality images, although the specific view, for the best image, in an individual patient can vary. We would caution against absolute values of ONSD to indicate increased ICP, as it may be view dependent.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Becker DP, Miller JD, Ward JD, Greenberg RP, Young HF, Sakalas R. The outcome from severe head injury with early diagnosis and intensive management. J Neurosurg. 1977;47:491–502.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Smith M. Monitoring intracranial pressure in traumatic brain injury. Anesth Analg. 2008;106:240–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Geeraerts T, Launey Y, Martin L, Pottecher J, Vigue B, Duranteau J, Benhamou D. Ultrasonography of the optic nerve sheath may be useful for detecting raised intracranial pressure after severe brain injury. Intensive Care Med. 2007;33:1704–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Helmke K, Hansen HC. Fundamentals of transorbital sonographic evaluation of optic nerve sheath expansion under intracranial hypertension. I. Experimental study. Pediatr Radiol. 1996;26:701–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hansen HC, Helmke K. Validation of the optic nerve sheath response to changing cerebrospinal fluid pressure: ultrasound findings during intrathecal infusion tests. J Neurosurg. 1997;87:34–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Geeraerts T, Merceron S, Benhamou D, Vigue B, Duranteau J. Non-invasive assessment of intracranial pressure using ocular sonography in neurocritical care patients. Intensive Care Med. 2008;34:2062–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Soldatos T, Karakitsos D, Chatzimichail K, Papathanasiou M, Gouliamos A, Karabinis A. Optic nerve sonography in the diagnostic evaluation of adult brain injury. Crit Care. 2008;12:R67.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Moretti R, Pizzi B. Optic nerve ultrasound for detection of intracranial hypertension in intracranial hemorrhage patients: confirmation of previous findings in a different patient population. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 2009;21:16–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bauerle J, Schuchardt F, Schroeder L, Egger K, Weigel M, Harloff A. Reproducibility and accuracy of optic nerve sheath diameter assessment using ultrasound compared to magnetic resonance imaging. BMC Neurol. 2013;13:187.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Shah S, Kimberly H, Marill K, Noble VE. Ultrasound techniques to measure the optic nerve sheath: is a specialized probe necessary? Med Sci Monit. 2009;15:MT63-8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Rajajee V, Vanaman M, Fletcher JJ, Jacobs TL. Optic nerve ultrasound for the detection of raised intracranial pressure. Neurocrit Care. 2011;15:506–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Amini A, Kariman H, Dolatabadi AA, Hatamabadi HR, Derakhshanfar H, Mansouri B, Safari S, Eqtesadi R. Use of the sonographic diameter of optic nerve sheath to estimate intracranial pressure. Am J Emerg Med. 2013;31:236–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wang LJ, Yao Y, Feng LS, Wang YZ, Zheng NN, Feng JC, Xing YQ. Noninvasive and quantitative intracranial pressure estimation using ultrasonographic measurement of optic nerve sheath diameter. Sci Rep. 2017;7:42063.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Patterson DF, Ho ML, Leavitt JA, Smischney NJ, Hocker SE, Wijdicks EF, Hodge DO, Chen JJ. Comparison of ocular ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging for detection of increased intracranial pressure. Front Neurol. 2018;9:278.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Potgieter DW, Kippin A, Ngu F, McKean C. Can accurate ultrasonographic measurement of the optic nerve sheath diameter (a non-invasive measure of intracranial pressure) be taught to novice operators in a single training session? Anaesth Intensive Care. 2011;39:95–100.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bekerman I, Gottlieb P, Vaiman M. Variations in eyeball diameters of the healthy adults. J Ophthalmol. 2014;2014:503645.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Jakobsen CJ, Torp P, Sloth E. Perioperative feasibility of imaging the heart and pleura in patients with aortic stenosis undergoing aortic valve replacement. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2007;24:589–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale: L. Erlbaum Associates; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Skoloudik D, Herzig R, Fadrna T, Bar M, Hradilek P, Roubec M, Jelinkova M, Sanak D, Kral M, Chmelova J, Herman M, Langova K, Kanovsky P. Distal enlargement of the optic nerve sheath in the hyperacute stage of intracerebral haemorrhage. Br J Ophthalmol. 2011;95:217–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hansen HC, Helmke K. The subarachnoid space surrounding the optic nerves. An ultrasound study of the optic nerve sheath. Surg Radiol Anat. 1996;18:323–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Moretti R, Pizzi B, Cassini F, Vivaldi N. Reliability of optic nerve ultrasound for the evaluation of patients with spontaneous intracranial hemorrhage. Neurocrit Care. 2009;11:406–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Liu D, Kahn M. Measurement and relationship of subarachnoid pressure of the optic nerve to intracranial pressures in fresh cadavers. Am J Ophthalmol. 1993;116:548–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. De Bernardo M, Rosa N. Comment on ‘Invasive and noninvasive means of measuring intracranial pressure: a review’. Physiol Meas. 2018;39:058001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. De Bernardo M, Rosa N. Comment on “Optic nerve sheath diameter ultrasound evaluation in intensive care unit: possible role and clinical aspects in neurological critical patients’ daily monitoring”. Biomed Res Int. 2018;2018:6154357.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Ohle R, McIsaac SM, Woo MY, Perry JJ. Sonography of the optic nerve sheath diameter for detection of raised intracranial pressure compared to computed tomography: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Ultrasound Med. 2015;34:1285–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Shirodkar CG, Munta K, Rao SM, Mahesh MU. Correlation of measurement of optic nerve sheath diameter using ultrasound with magnetic resonance imaging. Indian J Crit Care Med. 2015;19:466–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Blaivas M, Theodoro D, Sierzenski PR. Elevated intracranial pressure detected by bedside emergency ultrasonography of the optic nerve sheath. Acad Emerg Med. 2003;10:376–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Tayal VS, Neulander M, Norton HJ, Foster T, Saunders T, Blaivas M. Emergency department sonographic measurement of optic nerve sheath diameter to detect findings of increased intracranial pressure in adult head injury patients. Ann Emerg Med. 2007;49:508–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kimberly HH, Shah S, Marill K, Noble V. Correlation of optic nerve sheath diameter with direct measurement of intracranial pressure. Acad Emerg Med. 2008;15:201–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Geeraerts T, Newcombe VFJ, Coles JP, Abate MG, Perkes IE, Hutchinson PJA, Outtrim JG, Chatfield DA, Menon DK. Use of T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of the optic nerve sheath to detect raised intracranial pressure. Crit Care. 2008;12:114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Weigel M, Lagreze WA, Lazzaro A, Hennig J, Bley TA. Fast and quantitative high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging of the optic nerve at 3.0 tesla. Invest Radiol. 2006;41:83–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Steinborn M, Fiegler J, Ruedisser K, Hapfelmeier A, Denne C, Macdonald E, Hahn H. Measurement of the optic nerve sheath diameter in children: comparison between transbulbar sonography and magnetic resonance imaging. Ultraschall Med. 2012;33:569–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Steinborn M, Fiegler J, Kraus V, Denne C, Hapfelmeier A, Wurzinger L, Hahn H. High resolution ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging of the optic nerve and the optic nerve sheath: anatomic correlation and clinical importance. Ultraschall Med. 2011;32:608–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Bauerle J, Lochner P, Kaps M, Nedelmann M. Intra- and interobsever reliability of sonographic assessment of the optic nerve sheath diameter in healthy adults. J Neuroimaging. 2012;22:42–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Ballantyne SA, O’Neill G, Hamilton R, Hollman AS. Observer variation in the sonographic measurement of optic nerve sheath diameter in normal adults. Eur J Ultrasound. 2002;15:145–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Toscano M, Spadetta G, Pulitano P, Rocco M, Di Piero V, Mecarelli O, Vicenzini E. Optic nerve sheath diameter ultrasound evaluation in intensive care unit: possible role and clinical aspects in neurological critical patients’ daily monitoring. Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:1621428.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Seth White, BS, and Benjamin GowLee, BS, Department of Anesthesiology & Perioperative Care, Loma Linda University Medical Center, facilitated the data transfer and administration of the study design.

Funding

This project was departmentally supported.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anesthesiology, Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, CA, USA

    Ronak Raval, Deon Lau, Ihab Dorotta & Davinder Ramsingh

  2. Department of Anesthesiology, UCI Medical Center, Orange, CA, USA

    Jay Shen

  3. Department of Radiology, Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, CA, USA

    Nick Ferguson & Thomas Kelly

  4. Department of Anesthesiology, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA

    Justin Daniels

Authors
  1. Ronak Raval
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jay Shen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Deon Lau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nick Ferguson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Thomas Kelly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Justin Daniels
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ihab Dorotta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Davinder Ramsingh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Davinder Ramsingh.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Dr. Ramsingh reports grants and personal fees from Edwards Lifesciences, grants and personal fees from General Electric, personal fees from Fujifilm Sonosite, grants from Merck Pharmaceuticals, grants from Pacira Pharmaceuticals, and grants from Masimo Corporation, outside the submitted work. The remaining authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Approval

The authors confirm adherence to ethical guidelines and received IRB approval to perform this study.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained for our study participants.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Raval, R., Shen, J., Lau, D. et al. Comparison of Three Point-of-Care Ultrasound Views and MRI Measurements for Optic Nerve Sheath Diameter: A Prospective Validity Study. Neurocrit Care 33, 173–181 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-019-00881-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-019-00881-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation