Features of the Sinushunt® and its influence on the cerebrospinal fluid system

Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry

Volumn 75, Issue 8, 2004, Pages 1156-1159

  Eklund, A ^a   Koskinen, L O D ^b   Malm, J ^b  

^a UMEÅ UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^b UMEÅ UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; CATHETER; CEREBROSPINAL FLUID SHUNTING; HYDROCEPHALUS; PRESSURE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REFLUX ESOPHAGITIS; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; CEREBROSPINAL FLUID PRESSURE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CRANIAL SINUS; EVALUATION; HUMAN; IN VITRO STUDY; INSTRUMENTATION;

AUTOMATION; CEREBROSPINAL FLUID PRESSURE; CEREBROSPINAL FLUID SHUNTS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CRANIAL SINUSES; HUMANS; HYDROCEPHALUS;

EID: 3442883146     PISSN: 00223050     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jnnp.2003.023168     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Borgesen SE, Gjerris F, Agerlin N. Shunting to the sagittal sinus. Acta Neurochir Suppl 2002;81:11-14.
2. Aschoff A, Kremer P, Benesch C, et al. Overdrainage and shunt technology. A critical comparison of programmable, hydrostatic and variable-resistance valves and flow-reducing devices. Childs Nerv Syst 1995;11:193-202.
3. Ekstedt J. CSF hydrodynamic studies in man. 2. Normal hydrodynamic variables related to CSF pressure and flow. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1978;41:345-53.
4. Lundkvist B, Eklund A, Koskinen LOD, et al. An adjustable CSF shunt. Advice for clinical use. Acta Neurol Scand 2003;108:38-42.
5. Hassan M, Higashi S, Yamashita J. Risks in using siphon-reducing devices in adult patients with normal-pressure hydrocephalus: bench test investigations with Delta valves. J Neurosurg 1996;84:634-41.
6. Gjerris F, Borgesen SE. Current concepts of measurement of cerebrospinal fluid absorption and biomechanics of hydrocephalus. Adv Tech Stand Neurosurg 1992;19:145-77.
7. Lundkvist B, Eklund A, Kristensen B, et al. Cerebrospinal fluid hydrodynamics after placement of a shunt with an antisiphon device: a long-term study. J Neurosurg 2001;94:750-6.
8. Czosnyka M, Batorski L, Laniewski P, et al. A computer system for the identification of the cerebrospinal compensatory model. Acta Neurochirurgica 1990;105:112-16.
9. Jenny P, Chazal J. Intracranial pressure and sagittal sinus pathology. J Neurosurg 1981;54:424.
10. Vanneste JA. Diagnosis and management of normal-pressure hydrocephalus. J Neurol 2000;247:5-14.
11. Boon AJ, Tans JT, Delwel EJ, et al. Dutch normal-pressure hydrocephalus study: prediction of outcome after shunting by resistance to outflow of cerebrospinal fluid. J Neurosurg 1997;87:687-93.
12. Kahlon B, Sundbarg G, Rehncrona S. Comparison between the lumbar infusion and CSF tap tests to predict outcome after shunt surgery in suspected normal pressure hydrocephalus. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2002;73:721-6.
13. Malm J, Kristensen B, Karlsson T, et al. The predictive value of cerebrospinal fluid dynamic tests in patients with th idiopathic adult hydrocephalus syndrome. Arch Neurol 1995;52:783-9.
14. Czosnyka Z, Czosnyka M, Richards HK, et al. Laboratory testing of hydrocephalus shunts - conclusion of the UK Shunt evaluation programme. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2002;144:525-38 (discussion 538).
15. Hash CJ, Shenkin HA, Crowder LE. Ventricle to sagittal sinus shunt for hydrocephalus. Neurosurgery 1979;4:394-400.
16. El_Shafei IL, El_Shafei HI. The retrograde ventriculosinus shunt: concept and technique for treatment of hydrocephalus by shunting the cerebrospinal fluid to the superior sagittal sinus against the direction of Wood flow. Preliminary report. Childs Nerv Syst 2001;17:457-65 (discussion 466).
17. ISO-7197. Neurosurgical implants - Sterile, single-use hydrocephalus shunts and components. In: ISO Standards. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization, 1997:1-16.
18. Czosnyka M, Czosnyka Z, Whitehouse H, et al. Hydrodynamic properties of hydrocephalus shunts: United Kingdom Shunt Evaluation Laboratory. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1997;62:43-50.