Abstract
We tested various shunt systems for pressure/flow characteristics and long-term reliability. In addition, we used a model to simulate activities of daily life postural changes, blood and airway pressure changes and their impact on CSF pressure and flow through various ventriculo-peritoneal shunt systems. In the recumbent position, the changes in flow rate and CSF pressure depended on the valve resistance. Various valves showed deviations from the pressure/flow characteristics claimed for, them and proved to be unreliable during long-term perfusion. The flow rate increased in the head-up position. Negative intracranial CSF pressure was due to the continued flow through the shunt system afforded by the siphon effect. The siphon effect was so marked in the upright position that valves of various kinds, and with various resistances did not make any significant difference in the resulting intracranial pressure (ICP). The shunt systems, however, differed in the maximum flow rate in the upright position, leading to a different steep fall in ICP following elevation of the body. Ball-and-spring valves had the highest flow rates (>500 ml/h), leading to negative ICP within seconds. Diaphragm valves, and especially the self-adjusting diaphragm valve, demonstrated a slower drop in ICP, taking several, minutes to reach negative ICP. ASD and SCD, however, did prevent any siphoning effects, leading to an ICP within the corresponding valve opening/closing pressure range. Our results demonstrate that in most patients there is no significant difference in various different shunting systems as long as the patient, is mobile. Different pressure values, however, may be important in bed-ridden patients with no postural hydrostatic CSF pressure changes. The difference in the drop in ICP during postural changes may be an important factor in a certain group of patients who are prone to negative pressure-dependent complications, e.g., slit-ventricle syndrome, subdural hematoma and hygroma. More important than the development of sophisticated new shunt systems is the maintenance, of longterm durability and the ability to rely on the valves' characteristics.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
American Society for Testing Materials (1980) Standard practice for evaluating and specifying implantable, shunt assemblies for neurosurgical application. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, part 46, F 647. American National Standards Institute, New York
Aschoff A, Osterloh M, Benesch C, Haken M von, Kremer P, Kunze S (1990) Criteria and methods for testing of hydrocephalus valves and antisiphon devices. Results of 102 tested exemplars. Paper presented at the Joint Meeting of the German and Greek Neurosurgical Societies, Athens, 14–17 October 1990
Horton D, Pollay M (1990) Fluid performance of a new siphon-control device for ventricular shunts. J Neurosurg 72:926–932
International Organization for Standardization (1992) Report of the first meeting of the ISO/TC 150/SC 3 Working Group on Testing Neurosurgical Implants, Göttingen, 9–10 January 1992
Keith HD, Watts C (1983) Testing of cerebrospinal fluid shunt systems under dynamic, flow conditions. Med Instrument 17:297–302
McCullough DC (1986) Symptomatic progressive ventriculomegaly in hydrocephalics with patent shunts and antisiphon devices. Neurosurgery 19:617–621
Richard KE, Block FR, Steinberg HJ (1986) Testing of hydrocephalus shunt systems. Adv Neurosurg 14:268–273
Trost HA, Heissler HE, Claussen G, Gaab MR (1991) Testing the hydrocephalus shunt valve: long-term bench test results of various new and explanted hydrocephalus shunt valves. The need for a model for testing shunt valves under physiological conditions. Eur J Pediatr Surg 1 [Suppl 1]:38–40
Yamada S, Ducker TB, Perot PL (1975) Dynamic changes of cerebrospinal fluid in upright and recumbent shunted experimental animals. Child's Brain 1:187–192
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Trost, H.A. Is there a reasonable differential indication for different hydrocephalus shunt systems?. Child's Nerv Syst 11, 189–192 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00277652
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00277652