Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Rationale and methodology of the multicenter pediatric cerebrospinal sluid shunt design trial

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

Abstract

Cerebrospinal fluid shunt failure remains a common and at times overwhelming problem in pediatric patients with hydrocephalus. Two new shunt valve designs, the Orbis-Sigma (Cordis Corporation, Miami, Florida) and the Delta valve (PS Medical, Goletta, California), have flow/pressure characteristics dramatically different from those of standard differential pressure valves which have been used for over three decades. Both new designs reduce the siphoning effect in the upright position, and have been reported to reduce shunt failure rates in uncontrolled series, allegedly due to reduction in shunt overdrainage. Most mechanical shunt failure in the first 2 years after implantation is due to proximal shunt obstruction, overdrainage, and loculated ventricles. By reducing the incidence of slit ventricles associated with standard valves, both new designs could be envisioned as reducing the early mechanical complications. The improved results with both new valves could, however, also be to a large extent due to other confounding effects of shunt surgery, including patient selection, surgical technique, and specific configuration of the components of the shunt other than the valve. There are also theoretical reasons why these valve designs might be worse than their predecessors, including the narrow orifice and high resistance of the Orbis-Sigma, and the flexible membrane of the siphon control portion of the Delta valve, which may increase the ventricular pressure in the upright position or become blocked by encasing scar tissue. For this reason a randomized trial is required to determine efficacy, and a standard differential pressure valve is required as the control desing. A significant reduction in early shunt failure would dramatically improve the morbidity and mortality of pediatric hydrocephalic patients, as well as providing substantial savings to the health care system. Failure to determine any difference would focus attention on other issues surrounding shunt surgery, such as patient characteristics or surgical technique.

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. Albright AL, Haines SJ, Taylor FH (1988) Function of parietal and frontal shunts in childhood hydrocephalus. J Neurosurg 69:883–886

    Google Scholar 

  2. Amacher AL, Wellington J (1984) Infantile hydrocephalus: long-term results of surgical therapy. Child's Brain 11:217–229

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bierbrauer KS, Storrs BB, McLone DG, Tomita T, Dauser R (1990) A prospective, randomized study of shunt function and infections as a function of shunt placement. Pediatr Neurosurg 16:287–291

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  5. Da Silva MC, Drake J (1990) Effect of subcutaneous implantation of antisiphon devices on CSF shunt function. Pediatr Neurosurg 16:197–202

    Google Scholar 

  6. Da Silva MC, Drake JM (1991) Complications of cerebrospinal fluid shunt antisiphon devices. Pediatr Neurosurg 17:304–309

    Google Scholar 

  7. Drake JM (1993) Ventriculostomy for treatment of hydrocephalus. Neurosurg Clin North Am 4:657–666

    Google Scholar 

  8. Drake JM, Sainte-Rose C (1995) The shunt book. Blackwell, New York

    Google Scholar 

  9. Drake J, Kestle JRW (1996) Determining the best CSF shunt valve design —the pediatric valve design trial. Neurosurgery 38:604–607

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Drake JM, Da Silva MC, Rutka JT (1993) Functional obstruction of an antisiphon device by raised tissue capsule pressure. Neurosurgery 32:137–139

    Google Scholar 

  11. Drake JM, Tenti G, Sivaloganathan S (1994) Computer modeling of siphoning for CSF shunt design evaluation. Pediatr Neurosurg 21:6–15

    Google Scholar 

  12. Epstein F (1985) How to keep shunts functioning, or the impossible dream. Clin Neurosurg 32:608–631

    Google Scholar 

  13. Epstein F, Lapras C, Wisoff JH (1988) ‘Slit-ventricle syndrome’: etiology and treatment. Pediatr Neurosci 14:5–10

    Google Scholar 

  14. Foltz EL, Blanks J (1988) Symptomatic low intracranial pressure in shunted hydrocephalus. J Neurosurg 68:401–408

    Google Scholar 

  15. Foltz EL, Blanks J, Meyer R (1994) Hydrocephalus: the zero ICP ventricle shunt (ZIPS) to control gravity shunt flow. A clinical study in 56 patients. Child's Nerv Syst 10:43–48

    Google Scholar 

  16. Fox JL, McCullough DC, Green RC (1972) Cerebrospinal fluid shunts: an experimental comparison of flow rates and pressure values in various commerical systems. J Neurosurg 37:700–705

    Google Scholar 

  17. Fox JL, McCullough DC, Green RC (1973) Effect of cerebrospinal fluid shunts on intracranial pressure and on cerebrospinal fluid dynamics. 2. A new technique of pressure measurements: results and concepts. 3. A concept of hydrocephalus. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 36:302–312

    Google Scholar 

  18. Griebel R, Khan M, Tan L (1985) CSF shunt complications: an analysis of contributory factors. Child's Nerv Syst 1:77–80

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hirsch JF, Hoppe-Hirsch E (1988) Shunts and shunt problems in childhood. Adv Tech Stand Neurosurg 16:177–196

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hoffman HJ (1982) Technical problems in shunts. Monogr Neural Sci 8:158–169

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hoppe-Hirsch E, Sainte Rose C, Renier D, Hirsch JF (1987) Pericerebral collections after shunting. Child's Nerv Syst 3:97–102

    Google Scholar 

  22. Horton D, Pollay M (1990) Fluid flow performance of a new siphon-control device for ventricular shunts. J Neurosurg 72:926–932

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kiekens R, Mortier W, Pothmann R, Bock WJ, Seibert H (1982) The slitventricle syndrome after shunting in hydrocephalic children. Neuropediatries 13:190–194

    Google Scholar 

  24. Liptak GS, Masiulis BS, McDonald JV (1985) Ventricular shunt survival in children with neural tube defects. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 74:113–117

    Google Scholar 

  25. Martinez Lage JF, Poza M, Esteban JA (1992) Mechanical complications of the reservoirs and flushing devices in ventricular shunt systems. Br J Neurosurg 6:321–325

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  27. Oi S, Matsumoto S (1985) Slit ventricles as a cause of isolated ventricles after shunting. Child's Nerv Syst 1:189–193

    Google Scholar 

  28. Pang D, Grabb PA (1994) Accurate placement of coronal ventricular catheter using stereotactic coordinate-guided free-hand passage. Technical note. J Neurosurg 80:750–755

    Google Scholar 

  29. Pedersen PH, Waaler PE, Wester K (1992) Dysfunction of Holter Mini Elliptical valves caused by minor head trauma. Dev Med Child Neurol 34:66–68

    Google Scholar 

  30. Piatt JHJ, Carlson CV (1993) A search for determinants of cerebrospinal fluid shunt survival: retrospective analysis of a 14-year institutional experience. Pediatr Neurosurg 19:233–241

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 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 Nerrosurg 38:729–738

    Google Scholar 

  32. Post EM (1985) Currently available shunt systems: a review. Neurosurgery 16:257–260

    Google Scholar 

  33. Pudenz RH (1981) The surgical treatment of hydrocephalus — an historical review. Surg Neurol 15:15–26

    Google Scholar 

  34. Rekate HL (1991) Shunt revision: complications and their prevention. Pediatr Neurosurg 17:155–162

    Google Scholar 

  35. Sainte-Rose C (1993) Shunt obstruction: a preventable complication? Pediatr Neurosurg 19:156–164

    Google Scholar 

  36. Sainte-Rose C, Hooven MD, Hirsch JF (1987) A new approach to the treatment of hydrocephalus. J Neurosurg 66:213–226

    Google Scholar 

  37. 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 

  38. Savitz MH (1989) Distal unishunt obstruction (letter). Neurosurgery 24:960–961

    Google Scholar 

  39. Watts C, Keith HD (1983) Testing the hydrocephalus shunt valve. Child's Brain 10:217–228

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Consortia

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Drake, J.M., Kestle, J. & The Pediatric Hydrocephalus Treatmen Evaluation Group. Rationale and methodology of the multicenter pediatric cerebrospinal sluid shunt design trial. Child's Nerv Syst 12, 434–447 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00261620

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00261620

Key words

Navigation