Child's Nervous System

, Volume 31, Issue 6, pp 873–884 | Cite as

Basic cerebrospinal fluid flow patterns in ventricular catheters prototypes

  • Marcelo Galarza
  • Ángel Giménez
  • José Valero
  • Olga Pellicer
  • Juan F. Martínez-Lage
  • José M. Amigó
Original Paper

Abstract

Object

A previous study by computational fluid dynamics (CFD) of the three-dimensional (3-D) flow in ventricular catheters (VC) disclosed that most of the total fluid mass flows through the catheter’s most proximal holes in commercially available VC. The aim of the present study is to investigate basic flow patterns in VC prototypes.

Methods

The general procedure for the development of a CFD model calls for transforming the physical dimensions of the system to be studied into a virtual wire-frame model which provides the coordinates for the virtual space of a CFD mesh, in this case, a VC. The incompressible Navier–Stokes equations, a system of strongly coupled, nonlinear, partial differential conservation equations governing the motion of the flow field, are then solved numerically. New designs of VC, e.g., with novel hole configurations, can then be readily modeled, and the corresponding flow pattern computed in an automated way. Specially modified VCs were used for benchmark experimental testing.

Results

Three distinct types of flow pattern in prototype models of VC were obtained by varying specific parameters of the catheter design, like the number of holes in the drainage segments and the distance between them. Specifically, we show how to equalize and reverse the flow pattern through the different VC drainage segments by choosing appropriate parameters.

Conclusions

The flow pattern in prototype catheters is determined by the number of holes, the hole diameter, the ratio hole/segment, and the distance between hole segments. The application of basic design principles of VC may help to develop new catheters with better flow circulation, thus reducing the possibility of becoming occluded.

Keywords

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

References

  1. 1.
    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 104:157–159CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Drake JM, Sainte-Rose C (1995) The shunt book. Blackwell Science, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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 43:294–305CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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 17:2–9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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 92:31–38CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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 70:1589–1601CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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 98:425–433CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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 222:204–210CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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 5:299–302CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ginsberg HJ, Sum A, Drake JM (2000) Ventriculoperitoneal shunt flow dependency on the number of patent holes in a ventricular catheter. Pediatr Neurosurg 33:7–11CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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 99:426–431CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Galarza M, Giménez A, Valero J, Pellicer OP, Amigó JM (2014) Computational fluid dynamics of ventricular catheters used for the treatment of hydrocephalus: a 3D analysis. Childs Nerv Syst 30(1):105–116CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Harris CA, McAllister JP 2nd (2011) Does drainage hole size influence adhesion on ventricular catheters? Childs Nerv Syst 27:1221–1232CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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 26:781–789CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Galarza M, Giménez A, Pellicer O, Valero J, Amigó JM (2014) New designs of ventricular catheters for hydrocephalus by 3-D computational fluid dynamics. Childs Nerv Syst. 2014 Aug 6. [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Portnoy HD (1971) New ventricular catheter for hydrocephalic shunt. Technical note. J Neurosurg 34:702–703CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Haase J, Weeth R (1976) Multiflanged ventricular Portnoy catheter for hydrocephalus shunts. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 33:213–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kehler U, Klöhn A, Heese O, Gliemroth J (2003) Hydrocephalus therapy: reduction of shunt occlusions using a peel-away sheath. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 105:253–255CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Penn RD, Basati S, Sweetman B, Guo X, Linninger A (2011) Ventricle wall movements and cerebrospinal fluid flow in hydrocephalus. J Neurosurg 115:159–164CrossRefPubMedGoogle 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 102:1069–1075CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sood S, Lokuketagoda J, Ham SD (2005) Periventricular rigidity in long-term shunt-treated hydrocephalus. J Neurosurg 102:146–149CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    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
  23. 23.
    Stein SC, Guo W (2008) Have we made progress in preventing shunt failure? A critical analysis. J Neurosurg Pediatr 1:40–47CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marcelo Galarza
    • 1
  • Ángel Giménez
    • 2
  • José Valero
    • 2
  • Olga Pellicer
    • 3
  • Juan F. Martínez-Lage
    • 1
  • José M. Amigó
    • 2
  1. 1.Regional Service of Neurosurgery“Virgen de la Arrixaca” University HospitalMurciaSpain
  2. 2.Operations Research CenterUniversity Miguel HernándezElcheSpain
  3. 3.Department of Health PsychologyUniversity Miguel HernándezElcheSpain

Personalised recommendations