Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T03:55:53.562Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Use of Shunting Devices for Cerebrospinal Fluid in Canada

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2015

Harold J. Hoffman  and
May S.M. Smith
Harold J. Hoffman*
Affiliation:
Division of Neurosurgery, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario
May S.M. Smith
Affiliation:
Clinical Criteria Bureau of Medical Devices, Environmental Health Directorate, Health Protection Branch, Health and Welfare Canada, Ottawa, Ontario
*
Division of Neurosurgery, The Hospital for Sick Children, 555 University Ave., Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5T 1X8
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The use of diversionary CSF shunting devices for the treatment of hydrocephalus has been surveyed in Canada. Various factors influencing the operation of shunting devices, the characteristics of commercial shunts and the causes of shunt malfunction are described. Suggestions are made as to how to reduce the incidence of shunt malfunction.

Type
Special Features
Information
Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , May 1986 , pp. 81 - 87
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Neurological Sciences Federation 1986

References

REFERENCES

1.Pudenz, R. The surgical treatment of hydrocephalus: A historical review. Surg Neurol 1981; 15: 15–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Torkildsen, A. A new palliative operation in cases of inoperable occlusion of the Sylvian aqueduct. Acta Chir Scand 1939; 82: 117–125.Google Scholar
3.Matson, DD. A new operation for the treatment of communicating hydrocephalus. Report of a case secondary to generalized meningitis. J Neurosurg 1949; 6: 238–247.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Kushner, J, Alexander, E, Davis, CH, et al. Kyphoscoliosis following lumbar subarachnoid shunts. J Neurosurg 1971; 34: 783–791.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Hoffman, HJ, Hendrick, EB, Humphreys, RP. Newlumboperitoneal shunt for communicating hydrocephalus. J Neurosurg 1976; 44: 258–261.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Nulsen, FE, Spitz, EB. Treatment of hydrocephalus by direct shunt from ventricle to jugular vein. Surg Forum 1952; 2: 399–403.Google Scholar
7.Ransohoff, J: Ventriculo-pleural anastomosis in treatment of midline obstructional neoplasms. J Neurosurg 1954; 11: 295–298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Hoffman, HJ, Hendrick, EB, Humphreys, RP. Experience with ventriculo-pleural shunts. Child’s Brain 1983; 10: 404–413.Google ScholarPubMed
9.Hoffman, HJ. Technical problems in shunts. In: Shunts and Problems in Shunts. Choux, M. ed, S. Karger Pub, Basel, 1982; 158–169.Google Scholar
10.Portnoy, HD, Schulte, RR. Fox, JL. Croissant, PD. Trip, L: Antisiphon and reversible occlusion valves for shunting in hydrocephalus and preventing post-shunt subdural hematomas. J Neurosurg 1973; 38: 729–738.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Klein, DM. Comparison of antibiotic methods in the prophylaxis of operative shunt infections. Concepts pediat Neurosurg. Karger S, Basel. 1983; 4: 131–141.Google Scholar
12.Watts, CC. Therapeutic assist devices: Hydrocephalic shunt in Medical Devices: Measurements Quality Assurance and Standards. ASTM technical publication800, Caceres, CA. Yalken, HT, Jones, RJ, Piehler, HR, eds, ASTM 1983.Google Scholar
13.Hirsch, JF, Renier, D, Pierre-Kahn, A. Influence of the use of a surgical isolator on the rate of infection in the treatment of hydrocephalus. Child’s Brain 1978,4: 137–150.Google ScholarPubMed
14.Standard practice for evaluating and specifying implantable shunt assemblies for neurosurgical application. Designation F 647-79. Prepared by ASTM committee F-4 on medical and surgical materials and devices, subcommittee, F0450 on neurosurgery, 1979.Google Scholar
15.Watts, C, Keith, HD. Testing the hydrocephalus shunt valve. Child’s Brain 1983; 10: 217–228.Google ScholarPubMed
16.Watts, C, Avula, X, Keith, HD, Pulliam, M. An investigation of cerebrospinal fluid shunt valves. Final report Phase I, 1980; USPH, FDA 223-79-5064.Google Scholar
17.Keith, HD, Avula, X, Schelich, C, Watts, C. An investigation of cerebrospinal fluid shunt valves. Final report, Phase II, 1981: USPH FDA 223-79-5065.Google Scholar
18.Keith, HD, Lu, RL, Fu, CC, Shao, S, Watts, C. An investigation of cerebrospinal fluid shunt valves — test results for 25 valves, 1982; USPH FDA 223-79-5064.Google Scholar
19.Harbert, J, Haddad, D, McCullough, D: Quantitation of cerebrospinal fluid shunt now. Radiology 1974; 112: 379–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Stein, SC, Apfel, S: A noninvasive approach toquantitative measurement of flow through CSF shunts. J Neurosurg 1981:54:556–558.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Walters, BC, Hoffman, HJ. Hendrick, EB, Humphreys, RP. Cerebrospinal fluid shunt infection. Influences on initial management and subsequent outcome. J Neurosurg 1984: 60: 1014–1021.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed