Advertisement

Gravitational valves: relevant differences with different technical solutions to counteract hydrostatic pressure

  • M. Kiefer
  • U. Meier
  • R. Eymann
Part of the Acta Neurochirurgica Supplementum book series (NEUROCHIRURGICA, volume 96)

Summary

Two different technical principles of gravitational valves (G-valves) have been presented: counterbalancer and switcher G-valves. The objective of our prospective study was to look for clinically relevant differences between both.

A total of 54 patients with normal-pressure hydrocephalus (NPH) were treated; 30 patients received an Aesculap-Miethke GA-Valve (GAV; counterbalancer), and in 24 patients an Aesculap-Miethke Dualswitch-Valve (DSV; switcher) was implanted. The opening pressure of the posture-independent valve was 5 cm H2O in both devices. The outcome was clearly better with the usage of the GAV than with the DSV. The frequency and severity of complications was pronounced in the DSV group.

We recommend the Aesculap-Miethke-GAV valve with a low opening pressure in a posture-independent valve for patients with NPH.

Keywords

Hydrocephalus normal-pressure hydrocephalus overdrainage shunt 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Arriada N, Sotelo J (2002) Review: treatment of hydrocephalus in adults. Surg Neurol 58: 377–384PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aschoff A, Kremer P, Benesch C, Fruh K, Klank A, Kunze S (1995) Overdrainage and shunt technology. A critical comparison of programmable, hydrostatic and variable-resistance valve and flow-reducing devices. Childs Nerv Syst 11: 193–202PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bech RA, Waldemar G, Gjerris F, Klinken L, Juhler M (1999) Shunting effects in patients with idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus; correlation with cerebral and leptomeningeal biopsy findings. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 141: 633–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boon AJ, Tans JT, Delwel EJ, Egeler-Peerdeman SM, Hanlo PW, Wurzer HA, Avezaat CJ, de Jong DA, Gooskens RH, Hermans J (1998) Dutch Normal-Pressure Hydrocephalus Study: randomized comparison of low-and medium-pressure shunts. J Neurosurg 88: 490–495PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dauch WA, Zimmermann R (1990) Normal pressure hydrocephalus. An evaluation 25 years following the initial description [in German]. Fortschr Neurol Psychiatr 58: 178–190PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Drake JM, 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: 294–303; discussion 303–305PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hanlo PW, Cinalli G, Vandertop WP, Faber JA, Bogeskov L, Borgensen SE, Boschert J, Chumas P, Eder H, Pople IK, Serlo W, Vitzthum E (2003) Treatment of hydrocephalus determined by the European Orbis Sigma Valve II survey: a multicenter prospective 5-year shunt survival study in children and adults in whom a flow-regulating shunt was used. J Neurosurg 99: 52–57PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hebb AO, Cusimano MD(2001) Idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: a systematic review of diagnosis and outcome. Neurosurgery 49: 1166–1184; discussion 1184–1186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kiefer M, Eymann R, Steudel WI (2000) The dynamic infusion test in rats. Childs Nerv Syst 16: 451–456PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kiefer M, Eymann R, Meier U (2002) Five years experience with gravitational shunts in chronic hydrocephalus of adults. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 144: 755–767; discussion 767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kiefer M, Eymann R, Komenda Y, Steudel WI (2003) A grading system for chronic hydrocephalus [in German]. Zentralbl Neurochir 64: 109–115PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kiefer M, Eymann R, Steudel WI, Strowitzki M (2005) Gravitational shunt management of long-standing overt ventriculomegaly in adult (LOVA) hydrocephalus. J Clin Neurosci 12: 21–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Meier U, Zeilinger FS, Kintzel D (1999) Diagnostic in normal pressure hydrocephalus: A mathematical model for determination of the ICP-dependent resistance and compliance. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 141: 941–947; discussion 947–948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Meier U, Kiefer M, Sprung C (2004) Evaluation of the Miethke dual-switch valve in patients with normal pressure hydrocephalus. Surg Neurol 61: 119–127; discussion 127–128PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Meier U, Kiefer M, Lemcke J (2005) On the optimal opening pressure of hydrostatic valves in cases of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. Neurosurg Q 15: (in press)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Portnoy HD, Amirjamshidi A, Hoffman HJ, Levy LP, Haase J, Scott RM, Zhao YD, Peter J, Krivoy A, Sotelo J (1998) Shunts: which one, and why? Surg Neurol 49: 8–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Richards HK, Seeley HM, Pickard JD (2000) Shunt revisions: Data from the UK shunt registry. Eur J Pediatr Surg [Suppl] 10: 59Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vanneste JA (2000) Diagnosis and management of normal-pressure hydrocephalus. J Neurol 247: 5–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Kiefer
    • 1
  • U. Meier
    • 2
  • R. Eymann
    • 1
  1. 1.Medical School, Department of NeurosurgerySaarland UniversityHomburg-SaarGermany
  2. 2.Department of NeurosurgeryUnfallkrankenhaus BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations