Neurocritical Care

, 10:248 | Cite as

Malplacement of Ventricular Catheters by Neurosurgeons: A Single Institution Experience

  • Andrea Saladino
  • J. Bradley White
  • Eelco F. M. Wijdicks
  • Giuseppe LanzinoEmail author
Original Article



The placement of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) diversion devices requires an appropriate technical expertise associated with proper surgical training in order to minimize undue complications. This study sought to review a single institution’s experience with placement of external ventricular drains (EVD) and ventriculoperitoneal (VP) shunts as performed by neurosurgeons with procedure-specific training.


A retrospective database review was conducted for all patients who underwent intraventricular CSF diversion over a 5-year period from March 2003 to February 2008. Included in the analysis were ventriculostomy procedures that included EVDs, VP shunts, and ventriculoatrial shunts.


A total of 138 patients underwent 212 ventriculostomy procedures. Seventy-one (51%) patients were male and sixty-seven (49%) were female. The median age was 50.1 years. A ventriculostomy-related hemorrhage was identified in 15 (7.1%) patients—4 of whom developed new symptoms. Twenty-six (12.3%) ventriculostomy catheters were malplaced as determined from post-procedural imaging. Ventriculostomy-related infections were identified in 7 (3.3%) patients, 4 of whom had EVDs and 3 of whom had VP shunts.


The placement of intraventricular catheters by neurosurgeons remains a relatively safe and effective procedure that is associated with infrequent rates of symptomatic hemorrhage and infection.


Ventriculostomy Hemorrhage Infection 


  1. 1.
    Greenberg MS, Arredondo N. Handbook of neurosurgery. 6th ed. Lakeland, FL, New York: Greenberg Graphics, Thieme Medical Publishers; 2006.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Becker DP, Nulsen FE. Control of hydrocephalus by valve-regulated venous shunt: avoidance of complications in prolonged shunt maintenance. J Neurosurg. 1968;28:215–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kothari RU, Brott T, Broderick JP, et al. The ABCs of measuring intracerebral hemorrhage volumes. Stroke. 1996;27:1304–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ehtisham A, Taylor S, Bayless L, et al. Placement of external ventricular drains and intracranial pressure monitors by neurointensivists. Neurocrit Care. 2008; in press.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Maniker AH, Vaynman AY, Karimi RJ, et al. Hemorrhagic complications of external ventricular drainage. Neurosurgery. 2006;59:ONS419–424; discussion ONS415–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Roitberg BZ, Khan N, Alp MS, et al. Bedside external ventricular drain placement for the treatment of acute hydrocephalus. Br J Neurosurg. 2001;15:324–7. doi: 10.1080/02688690120072478.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhong J, Dujovny M, Park HK, et al. Advances in ICP monitoring techniques. Neurol Res. 2003;25:339–50. doi: 10.1179/016164103101201661.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Guyot LL, Dowling C, Diaz FG, et al. Cerebral monitoring devices: analysis of complications. Acta Neurochir Suppl (Wien). 1998;71:47–9.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Huyette DR, Turnbow BJ, Kaufman C, et al. Accuracy of the freehand pass technique for ventriculostomy catheter placement: retrospective assessment using computed tomography scans. J Neurosurg. 2008;108:88–91. doi: 10.3171/JNS/2008/108/01/0088.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Aucoin PJ, Kotilainen HR, Gantz NM, et al. Intracranial pressure monitors. Epidemiologic study of risk factors and infections. Am J Med. 1986;80:369–76. doi: 10.1016/0002-9343(86)90708-4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chan KH, Mann KS. Prolonged therapeutic external ventricular drainage: a prospective study. Neurosurgery. 1988;23:436–8. doi: 10.1097/00006123-198810000-00005.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kanter RK, Weiner LB, Patti AM, et al. Infectious complications and duration of intracranial pressure monitoring. Crit Care Med. 1985;13:837–9. doi: 10.1097/00003246-198510000-00012.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Khanna RK, Rosenblum ML, Rock JP, et al. Prolonged external ventricular drainage with percutaneous long-tunnel ventriculostomies. J Neurosurg. 1995;83:791–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Winfield JA, Rosenthal P, Kanter RK, et al. Duration of intracranial pressure monitoring does not predict daily risk of infectious complications. Neurosurgery. 1993;33:424–30; discussion 421–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zabramski JM, Whiting D, Darouiche RO, et al. Efficacy of antimicrobial-impregnated external ventricular drain catheters: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. J Neurosurg. 2003;98:725–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sloffer CA, Augspurger L, Wagenbach A, et al. Antimicrobial-impregnated external ventricular catheters: does the very low infection rate observed in clinical trials apply to daily clinical practice? Neurosurgery. 2005;56:1041–4; discussion 1041–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Buxton N, Turner B, Ramli N, et al. Changes in third ventricular size with neuroendoscopic third ventriculostomy: a blinded study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2002;72:385–7. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.72.3.385.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Humana Press Inc. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea Saladino
    • 1
  • J. Bradley White
    • 2
  • Eelco F. M. Wijdicks
    • 3
  • Giuseppe Lanzino
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Neurologic SurgeryThe Mayo ClinicRochesterUSA
  2. 2.Department of Neuroscience and Experimental TherapeuticsTexas A&M Health Science CenterCollege StationUSA
  3. 3.Department of NeurologyThe Mayo ClinicRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations