Skip to main content

Gravitational valves: relevant differences with different technical solutions to counteract hydrostatic pressure

  • Conference paper
Brain Edema XIII

Part of the book series: Acta Neurochirurgica Supplementum ((NEUROCHIRURGICA,volume 96))

Summary

Two different technical principles of gravitational valves (G-valves) have been presented: counterbalancer and switcher G-valves. The objective of our prospective study was to look for clinically relevant differences between both.

A total of 54 patients with normal-pressure hydrocephalus (NPH) were treated; 30 patients received an Aesculap-Miethke GA-Valve (GAV; counterbalancer), and in 24 patients an Aesculap-Miethke Dualswitch-Valve (DSV; switcher) was implanted. The opening pressure of the posture-independent valve was 5 cm H2O in both devices. The outcome was clearly better with the usage of the GAV than with the DSV. The frequency and severity of complications was pronounced in the DSV group.

We recommend the Aesculap-Miethke-GAV valve with a low opening pressure in a posture-independent valve for patients with NPH.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arriada N, Sotelo J (2002) Review: treatment of hydrocephalus in adults. Surg Neurol 58: 377–384

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Aschoff A, Kremer P, Benesch C, Fruh K, Klank A, Kunze S (1995) Overdrainage and shunt technology. A critical comparison of programmable, hydrostatic and variable-resistance valve and flow-reducing devices. Childs Nerv Syst 11: 193–202

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Bech RA, Waldemar G, Gjerris F, Klinken L, Juhler M (1999) Shunting effects in patients with idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus; correlation with cerebral and leptomeningeal biopsy findings. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 141: 633–639

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Boon AJ, Tans JT, Delwel EJ, Egeler-Peerdeman SM, Hanlo PW, Wurzer HA, Avezaat CJ, de Jong DA, Gooskens RH, Hermans J (1998) Dutch Normal-Pressure Hydrocephalus Study: randomized comparison of low-and medium-pressure shunts. J Neurosurg 88: 490–495

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Dauch WA, Zimmermann R (1990) Normal pressure hydrocephalus. An evaluation 25 years following the initial description [in German]. Fortschr Neurol Psychiatr 58: 178–190

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Drake JM, Kestle JR, Milner R, Cinalli G, Boop F, Piatt J Jr, Haines S, Schiff SJ, Cochrane DD, Steinbok P, MacNeil N (1998) Randomized trial of cerebrospinal fluid shunt valve design in pediatric hydrocephalus. Neurosurgery 43: 294–303; discussion 303–305

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Hanlo PW, Cinalli G, Vandertop WP, Faber JA, Bogeskov L, Borgensen SE, Boschert J, Chumas P, Eder H, Pople IK, Serlo W, Vitzthum E (2003) Treatment of hydrocephalus determined by the European Orbis Sigma Valve II survey: a multicenter prospective 5-year shunt survival study in children and adults in whom a flow-regulating shunt was used. J Neurosurg 99: 52–57

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hebb AO, Cusimano MD(2001) Idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: a systematic review of diagnosis and outcome. Neurosurgery 49: 1166–1184; discussion 1184–1186

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Kiefer M, Eymann R, Steudel WI (2000) The dynamic infusion test in rats. Childs Nerv Syst 16: 451–456

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kiefer M, Eymann R, Meier U (2002) Five years experience with gravitational shunts in chronic hydrocephalus of adults. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 144: 755–767; discussion 767

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Kiefer M, Eymann R, Komenda Y, Steudel WI (2003) A grading system for chronic hydrocephalus [in German]. Zentralbl Neurochir 64: 109–115

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Kiefer M, Eymann R, Steudel WI, Strowitzki M (2005) Gravitational shunt management of long-standing overt ventriculomegaly in adult (LOVA) hydrocephalus. J Clin Neurosci 12: 21–26

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Meier U, Zeilinger FS, Kintzel D (1999) Diagnostic in normal pressure hydrocephalus: A mathematical model for determination of the ICP-dependent resistance and compliance. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 141: 941–947; discussion 947–948

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Meier U, Kiefer M, Sprung C (2004) Evaluation of the Miethke dual-switch valve in patients with normal pressure hydrocephalus. Surg Neurol 61: 119–127; discussion 127–128

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Meier U, Kiefer M, Lemcke J (2005) On the optimal opening pressure of hydrostatic valves in cases of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. Neurosurg Q 15: (in press)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Portnoy HD, Amirjamshidi A, Hoffman HJ, Levy LP, Haase J, Scott RM, Zhao YD, Peter J, Krivoy A, Sotelo J (1998) Shunts: which one, and why? Surg Neurol 49: 8–13

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Richards HK, Seeley HM, Pickard JD (2000) Shunt revisions: Data from the UK shunt registry. Eur J Pediatr Surg [Suppl] 10: 59

    Google Scholar 

  18. Vanneste JA (2000) Diagnosis and management of normal-pressure hydrocephalus. J Neurol 247: 5–14

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2006 Springer-Verlag

About this paper

Cite this paper

Kiefer, M., Meier, U., Eymann, R. (2006). Gravitational valves: relevant differences with different technical solutions to counteract hydrostatic pressure. In: Hoff, J.T., Keep, R.F., Xi, G., Hua, Y. (eds) Brain Edema XIII. Acta Neurochirurgica Supplementum, vol 96. Springer, Vienna. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-211-30714-1_71

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-211-30714-1_71

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Vienna

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-211-30712-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-211-30714-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics