Skip to main content
Log in

Overdrainage and shunt technology

A critical comparison of programmable, hydrostatic and variable-resistance valves and flow-reducing devices

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

Abstract

When vertical body position is simulated, conventional differential pressure valves show an absolutely unphysiological flow, which is 2–170 times the normal liquor production rate. Although this is compensated in part by the resistance of the silicon tubes, which may produce up to 94% of the resistance of the complete shunt system, a negative intracranial pressure (ICP) of up to 30–44 cmH2O is an unavoidable consequence, which can be followed by subdural hematomas, slit ventricles, and other well-known complications. Modern shunt technology offers programmable, hydrostatic, and “flow-controlled” valves and anti-siphon devices; we have tested 13 different designs from 7 manufacturers (56 specimens), using the “Heidelberg Valve Test Inventory” with 16 subtests. “Programmable” valves reduce, but cannot exclude, unphysiological flow rates: even in the highest position and in combination with a standard catheter typical programmable Medos-Hakim valves allow a flow of 93–232 ml/h, Sophy SU-8-valves 86–168 ml/h with 30 cmH2O. The effect of hydrostatic valves (Hakim-Lumbar, Chhabra) can be inactivated by movements of daily life. The weight of the metal balls in most valves was too low for adequate flow reduction. Antisiphon devices are highly dependent on external, i.e. subcutaneous, pressure which has unpredictable influences on shunt function, and clinically is sometimes followed by shunt insufficiency. Two new Orbis-Sigma valves showed relatively physiological flow rates even when the vertical position (30 cmH2O) was simulated. One showed an insufficient flow (5.7 ml/h), and one was primarily obstructed. These have by far the smallest outlet of all valves. Additionally, the ruby pin tends to stick. Therefore, a high susceptibility to obliterations and blockade is unavoidable. Encouraging results obtained in pediatric patients contrast with disappointing experiences in some German and Swedish hospitals, which suggests that our laboratory findings are confirmed by clinical results. The concept of strict flow limitation seems to be inadaequate for adult patients, who need a relatively high flow during (nocturnal) ICP crises. The problem of shunt overdrainage remains unsolved.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abe H, Chiba Y, Tokoro K (1991) Effect of anti-siphon device in shunting procedure: intraventricular pressure during posture changes. In: Matsumoto S, Tamaki N (eds) Hydrocephalus. Pathogenesis and treatment. Springer, Tokyo Berlin Heidelberg pp 391–398

    Google Scholar 

  2. American Society for Testing and Materials (1989) Standard practice for evaluating and specifying implantable shunt assemblies for neurosurgical application. Designation F 647–679

  3. Aschoff A (1994) In-vitro-Testung von Hydrocephalus-Ventilen. Thesis, University of Heidelberg

  4. Aschoff, A, Osterloh M, Kunze S (1990) Longtime tests of 30 hydrocephalus valves (abstract). Child's Nerv Syst 6: 282

    Google Scholar 

  5. Aschoff A, Kremer P, Benesch C, Klank A, Kunze S (1991) Shunt technology and overdrainage. A critical review of hydrostatic, programmable and variable-resistance valves and flowreducing devices. Eur J Pediatr Surg 1 [Suppl 1]: 49–50

    Google Scholar 

  6. Benesch C, Aschoff A (1992) Hydrocephalus treatment with the programmable Medos-Hakim valve: laboratory testing and clinical experiences with 70 implantations. Eur J Pediatr Surg 2 [Suppl 1]:45

    Google Scholar 

  7. Castillo M, Hudgins PA, Malko JA, Burrow BK, Hoffmann JC (1991) Flow-sensitive MR imaging of ventriculoperitoneal shunts: in vitro findings, clinical applications, and pitfalls. AJN 12:667–674

    Google Scholar 

  8. Chapman PH, (1990) Optimum position of the antisiphon device (letter). Neurosurgery 27:333

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  10. Chervu, S, Chervu LR, Vallabhajosyula B, Milstein DM, Shapiro KM, Shulman K, Blaufox MD (1984) Quantitative evaluation of cerebrospinal fluid shunt flow. J Nucl Med 25:91–95

    Google Scholar 

  11. Chiba Y, Yuda K (1980) Thermosensitive determinatof CSF shunt patency with a pair of small disc thermistors. J Neurosurg 52: 700–704

    Google Scholar 

  12. Chiba, Y, Tokoro K, Abe H (1991) Importance of anti-siphon devices in shunt therapy of pediatric and adolescent hydrocephalus. In: Matsumoto S, Tamaki N (eds) Hydrocephalus. Pathogenesis and treatment. Springer, Tokyo Berlin Heidelberg, pp 375–382

    Google Scholar 

  13. Cinalli G, Sainte-Rose C, Pierre-Kahn A, Renier D, Hoppe-Hirsch E, Hirsch JF (1993) Analysis of a pediatric series of 523 hydrocephalic patients treated with a CSF flow regulating device (abstract). Child's Nerv Syst 9:52

    Google Scholar 

  14. Da Silva MC, Drake JM (1990–1991) Effect of subcutaneous implantation on anti-siphon device function. Pediatr Neurosurg 16:197–202

    Google Scholar 

  15. Dautheribes M, Liguoro D, San Galli F, Kerdiles C, Guerin J (1993) Programmable shunting hydrocephalus in various etiologies: a series of 28 cases (abstract). Child's Nerv Syst 9:59

    Google Scholar 

  16. Dietrich U, Lumenta C, Sprick C, Majewski B (1987) Subdural hematoma in a case of hydrocephalus and macrocrania. Experience with a pressure-adjustable valve. Child's Nerv Syst 3:242–243

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ekstedt J, Friden H (1980) Hydrodynamic properties of CSF shunt systems. In: Shulman K, Marmarou A, Miller JD, Becker DP, Hochwald GM, Brock M (eds) Intracranial pressure IV. Springer, Berlin Vienna New York, pp 483–485

    Google Scholar 

  18. Faulhaber K, Schmitz P (1978) Overdrainage phenomena in shunt treated hydrocephalus. Acta Neurochir 45:89–101

    Google Scholar 

  19. Foltz EL, Blanks J, Meyer R (1993) Shunted hydrocephalus: normal upright ICP by CSF gravity-flow control. Surg Neurol 39:210–217

    Google Scholar 

  20. Fox JD, Portnoy HD, Shulte RR (1973) Cerebrospinal fluid shunts: an experimental evaluation of flow rates and pressure values in the anti-siphon valve. Surg Neurol 1:299–302

    Google Scholar 

  21. Fox JL (1984) Anti-siphon device in shunt therapy (letter). J Neurosurg 61: 1157–1158

    Google Scholar 

  22. Genitori L, Lena G, Erdincler P, Tavares de Lima F, Achouri M, Choux M (1992) Mechanical and functional complications in shunts. A series of 1244 children and 2845 operations (abstract). Child's Nerv Syst 9:52

    Google Scholar 

  23. Gruber R, Jenny P, Herzog B (1984) Experiences with the antisiphon-device (ASD) in shunt therapy of pediatric hydrocephalus. J Neurosurg 61:156–162

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hakim S (1973) Hydraulic and mechanical miss-matching of valve shunts used in the treatment of hydrocephalus: the need for a servo-valve shunt. Dev Med Child Neurol 15:646–653

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hakim S, Duran de la Roche F, Burton JD (1973) A critical analysis of valve shunts used in the treatment of hydrocephalus. Dev Med Child Neurol 15:230–255

    Google Scholar 

  26. Hara M, Kadowski C, Konishi Y (1983) A new, method for measuring CSF flow in shunts. J Neurosurg 58:557–561

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hashimoto T, Nakamura N, Kanki T, Shimazu H, Yamakoshi K, Gondoh M, Tamai T (1991) A new shunt system with non-invasive flow rate regulation and pressure measurement. In: Matsumoto S, Tamaki N (eds) Hydrocephalus. Pathogenesis and treatment. Springer, Tokyo Berlin Heidelberg, pp 422–431

    Google Scholar 

  28. Horton DD, Williams G, Pollay M (1991) The effectiveness of a siphon control device in preventing the complications of overshunting. In: Matsumoto S, Tamaki T (eds) Hydrocephalus. Pathogenesis and treatment. Springer, Tokyo Berlin Heidelberg, pp 370–374

    Google Scholar 

  29. Janneck C, Blaschke H (1983) Klmische Bewertung variierender Liquordrainagesysteme bei konnataler wie erworbener Hydrocephalie. In: Voth D, Gutjahr P, Glees P (eds) Hydrocephalus im frühen Kindesalter. Enke, Stuttgart, pp 199–203

    Google Scholar 

  30. Jaskoska E, MacKinnon AE (1988) Experience with antisiphon devices: successes and complications. Z Kinderchir 43:22–23

    Google Scholar 

  31. Jones RFC, Teo C, Currie B, Kwok BCT, Nayanar VV (1991) The Antisiphon device: its value in preventing excessive drainage. In: Matsumoto S, Tamaki N (eds) Hydrocephalus. Pathogenesis and treatment. Springer, Tokyo Berlin Heidelberg, pp 383–390

    Google Scholar 

  32. Kadowaki C, Hara M, Numoto M, Takekeuchi K (1986) Factors affecting cerebospinal fluid flow in a shunt. Br J Neurosurg 1:467–475

    Google Scholar 

  33. Kadowaki C, Hara M, Numoto M, Takekeuchi K (1989) CSF hydrodynamics and CSF flow through a shunt in hydrocephalus. In: Hoff JT, Betz AL, et al (eds) VII/1. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 402–405

    Google Scholar 

  34. Keith HD, Watts C (1983) Testing of cerebrospinal fluid shunt systerms under dynamic flow conditions. Med Instrum 17:297–302

    Google Scholar 

  35. Keith HD, Avula X, Schelich C, Watts C (1981) Investigation of cerebrospinal fluid valves. Final report, phase II (USPH FDA 223-79-5064). University of Missouri, 1 August, 1981

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

    Google Scholar 

  37. Kremer P, Aschoff A, Kunze S (1994) Risks of using siphon-reducing devices. Child's Nerv Syst 10:231–235

    Google Scholar 

  38. Lakke JPWF, Go KG (1968) A simple method to determine patency of ventriculo-atrial shunts in children with hydrocephalus. Neurochirurgia 11:210–216

    Google Scholar 

  39. Lumenta CB, N Roosen, Dietrich U (1990) Clinical experience with a pressure-adjustable valve SOPHY in the mangement of hydrocephalus. Child's Nerv Syst 6:1–6

    Google Scholar 

  40. Maitrot D, Valery CA, Boyer P, Kehrli P, Buchheit F (1991) Sophy shunts in the treatment of 130 patients. In: Matsumoto S, Tamaki N (eds) Hydrocephalus. Pathogenesis and treatment. Springer, Tokyo Berlin Heidelberg, pp 399–404

    Google Scholar 

  41. Martin AJ, Drake LM, Lemaire C, Henkelman RM (1989) Cerebrospinal fluid shunts: MR measurement of CSF shunt flow. Radiology 173:243–247

    Google Scholar 

  42. Matsumae M, Murakami T, Ueda M, Suzuki Y (1987) Dynamic changes of cerebrospinal fluid shunt in patient's daily life. Shoni no Noshinkei 3:30–34

    Google Scholar 

  43. Matsumae M, Sato O, Itoh K, Fukuda T, Suzuki Y (1989) Quantification of cerebrospinal fluid shunt flow rates. Assessment of the programmable pressure valve. Child's Nerv Syst 5:356–360

    Google Scholar 

  44. McCullough DC (1986) Symptomatic progressive ventriculomegaly in hydrocephalus with patent shunt and anti-siphon devices. Neurosurgery 4:617–621

    Google Scholar 

  45. McCullough DC, Wells M (1982) Complications with antisiphon devices in hydrocephalics with ventriculoperitoneal shunts. In: Epstein F, Raimondi AJ (eds) Concepts in paediatric neurosurgery, vol 2. Karger, Basel, pp 63–74

    Google Scholar 

  46. Oi S, Matsumoto S (1987) Infantile hydrocephalus and the slit ventricle syndrome in early infancy. Child's Nerv Syst 3:145–150

    Google Scholar 

  47. Portnoy HD (1990) Optimum position of the antisiphon device (letter). Neurosurgery 27:332–333

    Google Scholar 

  48. Portnoy HD, Schulte RR, Fox JL (1973) Antisiphon and reversible occlusion valves for shunting in hydrocephalus and preventing post-shunt subdural hematomas. J Neurosurg 38:729–738

    Google Scholar 

  49. Pudenz RH (1990) Optimum position of the antisiphon device (letter). Neurosurgery 27:333

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  51. Richard KE, Block FR, Ackermann CW, Britten E, Steinberg J, Weber M (1989) Untersuchung des Regelverhaltens von Shuntsystemen zur operativen Behandlung des Hydrocephalus. Abschlußbericht zum Forschungsvorhaben RI 328/3-2 der DFG

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

    Google Scholar 

  53. Savader SJ, Savader BL, Murtagh FR, Clarke LP, Silbinger ML (1988) MR evaluation of flow in a ventricular shunt phantom with in vivo correlation. J Comp Assist Tomogr 12:765–769

    Google Scholar 

  54. Schmitt J, Spring A (1990) Die Therapie des Normaldruckhydrocephalus mit dem transcutan magnetisch verstellbaren Ventil. Neurochirurgia 33 [Suppl 1]:23–26

    Google Scholar 

  55. Schoener WF, Verheggen R, Reparon C, Markakis E (1991) Evaluation of shunt failures by compliance analysis and inspection of shunt valves and shunt materials, using microscopic or scanning electron microscopic techniques. In: Matsumoto S, Tamaki N (eds) Hydrocephalus. Pathogenesis and treatment. Springer, Tokyo Berlin Heidelberg, pp 452–472

    Google Scholar 

  56. Seida M, Ito U, Tomida S, Yamazaki S, Inaba Y (1987) Ventriculoperitoneal shunt malfunction with anti-siphon device in normal-pressure hydrocephalus: report of three cases. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 27:769–773

    Google Scholar 

  57. Serlo W, Saukkonen AL, Heikkinen E, Wendt L von (1989) The incidence and management of the slit ventricle syndrome. Acta Neurochir 99:113–116

    Google Scholar 

  58. Tokoro K, Chiba Y (1991) Optimum position for an antisiphon device in a cerebrospinal, fluid shunt system. Neurosurgery 29:519–525

    Google Scholar 

  59. Tokoro K, Chiba Y, Abe H (1991) Pitfalls of the Sophy programmable pressure valve: is it really better than a conventional valve and an anti-siphon device? In: Matsumoto S, Tamaki N (eds) Hydrocephalus. Pathogenesis and treatment. Springer, Tokyo Berlin Heidelberg, pp 405–421

    Google Scholar 

  60. Trost HA, Claussen G, Heissler H, Gaab MR (1991) Testing the hydrocephalus shunt valve: long term bench test result of various new and implanted hydrocephalus shunt valves. The need for a model for testing shunt valves under physiological conditions. Eur J Pediatr Surg 1 [Suppl 1]:38–40

    Google Scholar 

  61. Yamada H, Funakoshi T, Ando T, Sakai N, Sakata K (1979) Clinical studies on prevention of overdrainage syndrome after ventriculoperitoneal shunt by use of an antisiphon ball valve. Child's Brain 5:556–561

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

This paper is an updated version of an oral presentation held at the Consensus Conference: Hydrocephalus '92 Assisi, Italy, 26–30 April 1992

Deceased

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Aschoff, A., Kremer, P., Benesch, C. et al. Overdrainage and shunt technology. Child's Nerv Syst 11, 193–202 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00277653

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00277653

Key words

Navigation