Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

A critical analysis of 'normal' radionucleotide shuntograms in patients subsequently requiring surgery

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

Abstract

Background

Shuntograms are performed when patients present with symptoms suggestive of, but inconclusive for, shunt malfunction, without confirmatory radiological evidence.

Methods

Shuntograms over the past 3.5 years were reviewed. Patient records were reviewed for revision in proximity to a negative (normal) study.

Results

One hundred and fifteen out of 149 tests were negative. Thirty-four surgeries (in 31 patients) occurred subsequent to a negative shuntogram. In 18 out of 34 revisions the shunt was functional: 13 surgeries were for overdrainage, 4 were for unrelated reasons with shunt function confirmed incidentally and 1 was an exploration for cognitive deterioration. In 16 cases (13 patients) the shunt was not functional: 12 had proximal catheter occlusion in which, on subsequent review, there was no ventricular reflux present and the remaining had distal malfunctions.

Conclusions

The false negative rate for shuntograms was 16 out of 115 (14%) with proximal occlusion most common. This estimate of the predictive value of a normal flow study may influence the decision to revise a shunt.

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.

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bartynski WS, Valliappan S, Uselman JH, Spearman MP (2000) The adult radiographic shuntogram. Am J Neuroradiol 21:721–726

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Brendel AJ, Wynchank S, Castel JP, Barat JL, Leccia F, Ducassou D (1983) Cerebrospinal shunt flow in adults: radionuclide quantification with emphasis on patient position. Radiology 149:815–818

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bruce DA, Weprin B (2001) The slit ventricle syndrome. Neurosurg Clin N Am 36:709–717

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cantrell P, Fraser F, Pilling D, Carty H (1993) The value of baseline CT head scans in the assessment of shunt complication in hydrocephalus. Pediatr Radiol 23:485–486

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Di Chiro G, Grove AS (1966) Evaluation of surgical and spontaneous cerebrospinal fluid shunts by isotope scanning. J Neurosurg 24:743–748

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. French BN, Swanson, M (1981) Radionuclide-imaging shuntography for the evaluation of shunt patency. Surg Neurol 16:173–182

    Google Scholar 

  7. Garton HJ, Kestle JR, Drake JM (2001) Predicting shunt failure on the basis of clinical symptoms and signs in children. J Neurosurg 94:202–210

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Graham P, Howman-Giles R, Johnson I, Besser M (1982) Evaluation of CSF shunt patency by means of technetium-99m DTPA. J Neurosurg 57:262–266

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Iskandar BJ, McLaughlin C, Mapstone TB, Grabb PA, Oakes WJ (1998) Pitfalls in the diagnosis of ventricular shunt dysfunction: radiology reports and ventricular size. Pediatrics 101:1031–1036

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kan L, Nagelberg J, Maytal J (2000) Headaches in a paediatric emergency department: etiology, imaging and treatment. Headache 40:25–29

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. May CH, Aurisch R, Kornrumpf D, Vogel S (1999) Evaluation of shunt function in hydrocephalic patients with the radionuclide 99mTc-pertechnetate. Childs Nerv Syst 15:239–245

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. McComb JG (1990) Techniques for CSF diversion. Concepts Neurosurg 3:47–64

    Google Scholar 

  13. Osaka K, Yamasaki S, Hirayama A, Sato N, Ohi Y, Matsumoto S (1977) Correlation of the response of the flushing device to compression with the clinical picture in the evaluation of the functional status of the shunting system. Childs Brain 3:25–30

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Pudenz RH, Foltz EL (1991) Hydrocephalus: overdrainage by ventricular shunts. A review and recommendations. Surg Neurol 35:200–212

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 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 17:2–9

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Serlo W, Heikkinen E, Saukkonen AL, Wendt LV (1985) Classification and management of the slit ventricle syndrome. Childs Nerv Syst 1:194–199

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sood S, Canady AI, Ham SD (2000) Evaluation of shunt malfunction using shunt site reservoir. Paediatr Neurosurg 32:180–186

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Uvebrant P, Sixt R, Bjure J, Roos A (1992) Evaluation of cerebrospinal fluid shunt function in hydrocephalic children using99mTc-DTPA. Childs Nerv Syst 8:76–80

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Vernet O, Farmer JP, Lambert R, Montes JL (1996) Radionuclide shuntogram: adjunct to manage hydrocephalic patients. J Nucl Med 37:406–410

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Watkins L, Hayward R, Andar U, Harkness W (1994) The diagnosis of blocked cerebrospinal fluid shunts: a prospective study of referral to a paediatric neurosurgical unit. Childs Nerv Syst 10:87–90

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Dr. O'Brien is grateful for financial assistance received from the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, which enabled him to travel to St. Louis Children's Hospital. J.G.O. is supported by NIH grant NS41272.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. G. Ojemann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

O'Brien, D.F., Taylor, M., Park, T.S. et al. A critical analysis of 'normal' radionucleotide shuntograms in patients subsequently requiring surgery. Childs Nerv Syst 19, 337–341 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-003-0752-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-003-0752-y

Keywords

Navigation