Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Risks of using siphon-reducing devices

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Child's Nervous System Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Reducing the cerebrospinal flow is the task of siphonreducing devices (SRD). This paper shows test results with SRD, with special reference to the aspect of dysfunction of shunt valves in combination with anti-siphon. The local influences acting on the anti-siphon at the place of implantation and the dependence of the pressure range were examined as possible causes of dysfunction.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Chapman PH, Cosman ER, Arnold MA (1990) The relationship between ventricular fluid pressure and body position in normal subjects and subjects with shunts: a telemetric study. Neurosurgery 26:181–189

    Google Scholar 

  2. Fox JL, Portnoy HD, Shulte RR (1973) Cerebrospinal fluid shunts: an experimental evaluation of flow rates and pressure values in the antisiphon valve. Surg Neurol 1:299–302

    Google Scholar 

  3. Gruber R, Jenny P, Herzog B (1984) Experiences with the anti-siphon device (ASD) in shunt therapy of pediatric hydrocephalus. J Neurosurg 61:156–162

    Google Scholar 

  4. Hyde-Rowan MD, Rekate HL, Nulsen FE (1982) Reexpansion of previously collapsed ventricles: the slit ventricle syndrome. J Neurosurg 56: 536–539

    Google Scholar 

  5. Horton D, Pollay M (1990) Fluid flow performance of a new siphoncontrol device for ventricular shunts. J Neurosurg 72:926–943

    Google Scholar 

  6. Jaskolska E, MacKinnon AE (1988) Experience with antisiphon devices: successes and complications. Z Kinderchir 43 [Suppl II]: 22–23

    Google Scholar 

  7. McCullough DV (1986) Symptomatic progressive ventriculomegaly in hydrocephalics with patent shunts and antisiphon devices. Neurosurgery 19: 617–621

    Google Scholar 

  8. McCullough DV, Fox JL (1974) Negative intracranial pressure hydrocephalus in adults with shunts and its relationship to the production of subdural hematoma. J Neurosurg 40: 373–375

    Google Scholar 

  9. Portnoy HD (1984) Letter to the editor. J Neurosurg 61:1158

    Google Scholar 

  10. Portnoy HD (1985) Letter to the editor. Anti-siphon device: technical details. Neurosurgery 63:819

    Google Scholar 

  11. Portnoy HD, Schulte RR, Fox JL, Croissant PD, Tripp L (1973) Antisiphon and reversible occlusion valves for shunting in hydrocephalus and preventing post-shunt subdural hematomas. J Neurosurg 38:229–238

    Google Scholar 

  12. Pudenz RH (1990) Correspondence. Neurosurgery 27:333

    Google Scholar 

  13. Salah S, Sunder-Plassmann M, Zaunbauer F, Koos W (1978) The use of the antisiphon-valve in prevention of functional complications of shunting systems. Adv Neurosurg 6:42–44

    Google Scholar 

  14. Seida M, Ito U, Tomida S, Yamazaki S, Inaba Y (1987) Ventriculoperitoneal shunt malfunction with antisiphon device in normal-pressure hydrocephalus: report of three cases. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 27: 769–773

    Google Scholar 

  15. Serlo W, Saukkonen AL, Heikkinen E, Wendt L von (1989) The incidence and management of the slit ventricle syndrome. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 99: 113–116

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kremer, P., Aschoff, A. & Kunze, S. Risks of using siphon-reducing devices. Child's Nerv Syst 10, 231–235 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00301159

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00301159

Key words

Navigation