MRI safety of a programmable shunt assistant at 3 and 7 Tesla

British Journal of Neurosurgery

Volumn 26, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 397-400

  Mirzayan, M Javad ^a   Klinge, Petra M ^b   Samii, Madjid ^c   Goetz, Friedrich ^a   Krauss, Joachim K ^a  

^a HANNOVER MEDICAL SCHOOL   (Germany)

^b BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c INTERNATIONAL NEUROSCIENCE INSTITUTE   (Germany)

Author keywords

Anti siphon device; Hydrocephalus; Shunt; Valve

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CEREBROSPINAL FLUID FLOW; DEVICE SAFETY; MAGNET; MEDICAL DEVICE; NONHUMAN; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRESSURE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGRAMMABLE SHUNT ASSISTANT; TECHNOLOGY; VALVE;

CEREBROSPINAL FLUID SHUNTS; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; HUMANS; HYDROCEPHALUS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MAGNETS; PATIENT SAFETY;

EID: 84861633277     PISSN: 02688697     EISSN: 1360046X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/02688697.2011.625060     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Aschoff A, Kremer P, Hashemi B, Kunze S. The scientifi c history of hydrocephalus and its treatment. Neurosurg Rev 1999;22: 67-93.
2. H ofstetter T, Mirzayan MJ, Krauss JK. Ventriculoperitoneal shunt dysfunction in a patient presenting with neurogenic pulmonary edema. Case report. J Neurosurg 2007;106:701-3.
3. M irzayan MJ, Koenig K, Bastuerk M, Krauss JK. Coma due to meteorism and increased intra-abdominal pressure subse quent to ventriculoperitoneal shunt dysfunction. Lancet 2006;368:2032.
4. P ollack IF, Albright AL, Adelson PD. A randomized, controlled study of a programmable shunt valve versus a conventional valve for patients with hydrocephalus. Hakim-Medos Investigator Group. Neurosurgery 1999;45:1399-408.
5. Aschoff A, Kremer P, Benesch C, Fruh K, Klank A, Kunze S. Overdrainage and shunt technology. A critical comparison of programmable, hydrostatic and variable-resistance valves and fl ow-reducing devices. Childs Nerv Syst 1995;11:193-202.
6. C zosnyka ZH, Czosnyka M, Richards HK, Pickard JD. Evaluation of three new models of hydrocephalus shunts. Acta Neurochir Suppl 2005;95:223-7.
7. Kremer P, Aschoff A, Kunze S. Risks of using siphon-reducing devices. Childs Nerv Syst 1994;10:231-5.
8. R ingel F, Schramm J, Meyer B. Comparison of programmable shunt valves vs standard valves for communicating hydrocephalus of adults: a retrospective analysis of 407 patients. Surg Neurol 2005;63:36-41.
9. R ohde V, Haberl EJ, Ludwig H, Th omale UW. First experiences with an adjustable gravitational valve in childhood hydrocephalus. J Neurosurg Pediatr 2009;3:90-3.
10. L avinio A, Harding S, Van Der BF, et al.. Magnetic fi eld interactions in adjustable hydrocephalus shunts. J Neurosurg Pediatr 2008;2:222-8.
11. L udemann W, Rosahl SK, Kaminsky J, Samii M. Reliability of a new adjustable shunt device without the need for readjustment following 3-Tesla MRI. Childs Nerv Syst 2005;21:227-9.
12. M iwa K, Kondo H, Sakai N. Pressure changes observed in Codman- Medos programmable valves following magnetic exposure and fi lliping. Childs Nerv Syst 2001;17:150-3.
13. S hellock FG, Habibi R, Knebel J. Programmable CSF shunt valve: In vitro assessment of MR imaging safety at 3T. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2006;27:661-5.
14. I noue T, Kuzu Y, Ogasawara K, Ogawa A. Eff ect of 3-tesla magnetic resonance imaging on various pressure programmable shunt valves. J Neurosurg 2005;103:163-5.
15. K rauss JK, Regel JP, Vach W, et al.. White matter lesions in patients with idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus and in an agematched control group: A comparative study. Neurosurgery 1997;40:491-5.
16. K rauss JK, Regel JP, Vach W, Jungling FD, Droste DW, Wakhloo AK. Flow void of cerebrospinal fl uid in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus of the elderly: can it predict outcome after shunting? Neurosurgery 1997 40 67-73.
17. Ortler M, Kostron H, Felber S. Transcutaneous pressureadjustable valves and magnetic resonance imaging: an ex vivo examination of the Codman-Medos programmable valve and the Sophy adjustable pressure valve. Neurosurgery 1997;40:1050-7.
18. M irzayan MJ, Luetjens G, Borremans J, Regel J, Krauss J. Extended long-term ( 5 years) outcome of cerebrospinal fl uid shunting in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. Neurosurgery 2010;67:295-301.
19. K rauss JK, Halve B. Normal pressure hydrocephalus: survey on contemporary diagnostic algorithms and therapeutic decisionmaking in clinical practice. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2004;146:379-88.
20. F ransen P. Transcutaneous pressure-adjustable valves and magnetic resonance imaging: an ex vivo examination of the Codman-Medos programmable valve and the Sophy adjustable pressure valve. Neurosurgery 1998;42:430.
21. Fransen P, Dooms G, Th auvoy C. Safety of the adjustable pressure ventricular valve in magnetic resonance imaging: problems and solutions. Neuroradiology 1992;34:508-9.
22. L indner D, Preul C, Trantakis C, Moeller H, Meixensberger J. Eff ect of 3T MRI on the function of shunt valves-evaluation of Paedi GAV, Dual Switch and proGAV. Eur J Radiol 2005;56:56-9.
23. Shellock FG, Wilson SF, Mauge CP. Magnetically programmable shunt valve: MRI at 3-Tesla. Magn Reson Imaging 2007;25:1116-21.
24. Anderson R, Walker M, Viner J, Kestle J. Adjustment and malfunction of a programmable valve after exposure to toy magnets. J Neurosurg 2004;101:222-5.
25. Schneider T, Knauff U, Nitsch J, Firsching R. Electromagnetic fi eld hazards involving adjustable shunt valves in hydrocephalus. J Neurosurg 2002;96:331-4.
26. Shellock FG, Crues J. MR procedures: biologic eff ects, safety, and patient care. Radiology 2004;232:635-652.
27. Sprung C, Schlosser HG, Lemcke J, et al.. The adjustable proGAVshunt: A prospective safety and reliability multicenter study. Neurosurgery 2010;66:465-74.
28. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). Designation: F 2052. Standard test method for measurement of magnetically induced displacement force on passive implants in the magnetic resonance environment. In: Annual book of ASTM standards. Section 13: Medical devices and services . West Conshohocken. PA: ASTM; 2002, 2009.
29. Shellock FG. Biomedical Implants and Devices: Assessment of magnetic fi eld interactions with a 3.0-Tesla MR system. J Magn Reson Imaging 2002;16:721-32.