Child's Nervous System

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 105–116 | Cite as

Computational fluid dynamics of ventricular catheters used for the treatment of hydrocephalus: a 3D analysis

  • Marcelo Galarza
  • Ángel Giménez
  • José Valero
  • Olga Porcar Pellicer
  • José María Amigó
Original Paper



The most common treatment for hydrocephalus remains the ventriculoperitoneal shunt. Yet, the most frequent complication is ventricular catheter obstruction, which may account for 50–80 % of newly inserted shunts. Although many factors contribute to this, the main one is related to flow characteristics of the catheter within the hydrocephalic brain. A landmark study by Lin et al. addressed the problem of fluid characteristics in ventricular catheters using a two-dimensional simulation program of computational fluid dynamics (CFD).


The authors have studied five current commercially available ventricular catheter designs using CFD in three-dimensional automated designs. The general procedure for the development of a CFD model involves incorporating the physical dimensions of the system to be studied into a virtual wire-frame model. The shape and features of the actual physical model are transformed into coordinates for the virtual space of the computer and a CFD computational grid (mesh) is generated. The fluid properties and motion are calculated at each of these grid points. After grid generation, flow field boundary conditions are applied, and the fluid’s thermodynamic and transport properties are included. At the end, a system of strongly coupled, nonlinear, partial differential conservation equations governing the motion of the flow field are numerically solved. This numerical solution describes the fluid motion and properties.


The authors calculated that most of the total fluid mass flows into the catheter’s most proximal holes. Fifty to 75 % flows into the two most proximal sets of inlets of current commercially available 12–32-hole catheters. Some flow uniformity was disclosed in Rivulet-type catheter.


Most commercially available ventricular catheters have an abnormally increase flow distribution pattern. New catheter designs with variable hole diameters along the catheter tip will allow the fluid to enter the catheter more uniformly along its length, thereby reducing the probability of its becoming occluded.


Hydrocephalus Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) Ventricular catheter Shunt Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) Flow 


  1. 1.
    Payr E (1908) Drainage der Hirnventrikel Mittelst frei Transplantirter Blutgefasse; Bemerkungen ueber Hydrocephalus. Arch Klin Chir 87:801–885Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bergsneider M, Egnor MR, Johnston M, Kranz D, Madsen JR, McAllister JP 2nd, Stewart C, Walker ML, Williams MA (2006) What we don’t (but should) know about hydrocephalus. J Neurosurg 104:157–159PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Drake JM, Sainte-Rose C (1995) The shunt book. Blackwell, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Drake JM, Kestle JR, Tuli S (2000) CSF shunts 50 years on—past, present and future. Childs Nerv Syst 16:800–804PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sainte-Rose C, Piatt JH, Renier D, Pierre-Kahn A, Hirsch JF, Hoffman HJ, Humphreys RP, Hendrick EB (1991) Mechanical complications in shunts. Pediatr Neurosurg 17:2–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tuli S, Drake J, Lawless J, Wigg M, Math M, Lamberti-Pasculli M (2000) Risk factors for repeated cerebrospinal shunt failures in pediatric patients with hydrocephalus. J Neurosurg 92:31–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Drake J, 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 43:294–305PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harris CA, McAllister JP 2nd (2012) What we should know about the cellular and tissue response causing catheter obstruction in the treatment of hydrocephalus. Neurosurgery 70:1589–1601PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ginsberg HJ, Sum A, Drake JM (2000) Ventriculoperitoneal shunt flow dependency on the number of patent holes in a ventricular catheter. Pediatr Neurosurg 33:7–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lin J, Morris M, Olivero W, Boop F, Sanford RA (2003) Computational and experimental study of proximal flow in ventricular catheters. Technical note. J Neurosurg 99:426–431PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Clark TW, Van Canneyt K, Verdonck P (2012) Computational flow dynamics and preclinical assessment of a novel hemodialysis catheter. Semin Dial 25:574–581PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Frawley P, Geron M (2009) Combination of CFD and DOE to analyze and improve the mass flow rate in urinary catheters. J Biomech Eng 131(8):084501PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Harris CA, McAllister JP 2nd (2011) Does drainage hole size influence adhesion on ventricular catheters? Childs Nerv Syst 27:1221–1232PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hakim S (1969) Observations on the physiopathology of the CSF pulse and prevention of ventricular catheter obstruction in valve shunts. Dev Med Child Neurol Suppl 20:42–48PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sood S, Kim S, Ham SD, Canady AI, Greninger N (1993) Useful components of the shunt tap test for evaluation of shunt malfunction. Childs Nerv Syst 9:157–161PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schley D, Billingham J, Marchbanks RJ (2004) A model of in-vivo hydrocephalus shunt dynamics for blockage and performance diagnostics. Math Med Biol 21:347–368PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Penn RD, Basati S, Sweetman B, Guo X, Linninger A (2011) Ventricle wall movements and cerebrospinal fluid flow in hydrocephalus. J Neurosurg 115:159–164PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sood S, Lokuketagoda J, Ham SD (2005) Periventricular rigidity in long-term shunt-treated hydrocephalus. J Neurosurg 102:146–149PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sood S, Kumar CR, Jamous M, Schuhmann MU, Ham SD, Canady AI (2004) Pathophysiological changes in cerebrovascular distensibility in patients undergoing chronic shunt therapy. J Neurosurg Pediatr 100:447–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Penn RD, Lee MC, Linninger AA, Miesel K, Lu SN, Stylos L (2005) Pressure gradients in the brain in an experimental model of hydrocephalus. J Neurosurg 102:1069–1075PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stein SC, Guo W (2008) Have we made progress in preventing shunt failure? A critical analysis. J Neurosurg Pediatr 1:40–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Portnoy HD (1971) New ventricular catheter for hydrocephalic shunt. Technical note. J Neurosurg 34:702–703PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Haase J, Weeth R (1976) Multiflanged ventricular Portnoy catheter for hydrocephalus shunts. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 33:213–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Harris CA, Resau JH, Hudson EA, West RA, Moon C, Black AD, McAllister JP 2nd (2011) Reduction of protein adsorption and macrophage and astrocyte adhesion on ventricular catheters by polyethylene glycol and N-acetyl-L-cysteine. J Biomed Mater Res A 98:425–433PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Harris CA, Resau JH, Hudson EA, West RA, Moon C, McAllister JP 2nd (2010) Mechanical contributions to astrocyte adhesion using a novel in vitro model of catheter obstruction. Exp Neurol 222:204–210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Prasad A, Madan VS, Buxi TB, Renjen PN, Vohra R (1991) The role of the perforated segment of the ventricular catheter in cerebrospinal fluid leakage into the brain. Br J Neurosurg 5:299–302PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Thomale UW, Hosch H, Koch A, Schulz M, Stoltenburg G, Haberl EJ, Sprung C (2010) Perforation holes in ventricular catheters—is less more? Childs Nerv Syst 26:781–789PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cheatle JT, Bowder AN, Agrawal SK, Sather MD, Hellbusch LC (2012) Flow characteristics of cerebrospinal fluid shunt tubing. J Neurosurg Pediatr 9:191–197PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mukerji N, Cahill J, Rodrigues D, Prakash S, Strachan R (2009) Flow dynamics in lumboperitoneal shunts and their implications in vivo. J Neurosurg 111:632–637PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marcelo Galarza
    • 1
    • 4
  • Ángel Giménez
    • 2
  • José Valero
    • 2
  • Olga Porcar Pellicer
    • 3
  • José María Amigó
    • 2
  1. 1.Regional Department of Neurosurgery“Virgen de la Arrixaca” University HospitalMurciaSpain
  2. 2.Operations Research CenterUniversity Miguel HernándezElcheSpain
  3. 3.Department of Health PsychologyUniversity Miguel HernándezElcheSpain
  4. 4.Regional Service of NeurosurgeryHospital Universitario Virgen de la ArrixacaEl PalmarSpain

Personalised recommendations