Acta Neurochirurgica

, Volume 160, Issue 3, pp 519–524 | Cite as

A counterforce to diversion of cerebrospinal fluid during ventriculoperitoneal shunting: the intraperitoneal pressure. An observational study

  • Brit Böse
  • Veit Rohde
  • Ingo Fiss
  • Florian Baptist Freimann
Original Article - Pediatrics
  • 48 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Intraperitoneal pressure (IPP) counteracts the diversion of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) from the cranial to the peritoneal compartment during ventriculoperitoneal shunting. Animal studies suggest that the intrinsic IPP exceeds the intraperitoneal hydrostatic pressure. The intrinsic IPP in mobile patients is relevant for shunt therapy, but data about it is not available.

Methods

The IPP was measured indirectly in 25 mobile subjects (13 female) by applying a standard intravesical pressure measurement technique. Measurements were carried out in reference to the navel (supine position) and the xiphoid (upright position). Results were adjusted for the intraperitoneal hydrostatic pressure and correlated afterward with general body measures.

Results

The corrected mean (SD) IPP measured in the supine position was 4.4 (4.5) cm H2O, and the mean (SD) upright IPP was 1.6 (7.8) cm H2O (p = 0.02). A positive correlation was found between the body mass index (BMI) and the IPP in the upright (r = 0.51) and supine (r = 0.65) body positions, and between the abdominal circumference and the IPP in the supine position (r = 0.63).

Conclusions

The intrinsic IPP in mobile subjects exceeds the intraperitoneal hydrostatic pressure. Thus, the intrinsic IPP counteracts the diversion of CSF into the peritoneal compartment. The intrinsic IPP is correlated with mobile patients’ general body measures.

Keywords

Hydrocephalus Intraperitoneal pressure Overdrainage Ventriculoperitoneal shunt 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Michael Hanna, PhD, (Mercury Medical Research & Writing) for proof-reading the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Bergsneider M, Miller C, Vespa PM, Hu X (2008) Surgical management of adult hydrocephalus. Neurosurgery 62(Suppl 2):643–659 660CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Browd SR, Gottfried ON, Ragel BT, Kestle JRW (2006) Failure of cerebrospinal fluid shunts: part II: overdrainage, loculation, and abdominal complications. Pediatr Neurol 34:171–176CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chopra SS, Wolf S, Rohde V, Freimann FB (2015) Pressure measurement techniques for abdominal hypertension: conclusions from an experimental model. Crit Care Res Prac 2015:278139Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Diesner N, Freimann F, Clajus C, Kallenberg K, Rohde V, Stockhammer F (2016) Female gender predisposes for cerebrospinal fluid overdrainage in ventriculoperitoneal shunting. Acta Neurochir 158(7):1273–1278CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Freimann FB, Ötvös J, Chopra SS, Vajkoczy P, Wolf S, Sprung C (2013) Differential pressure in shunt therapy: investigation of position-dependent intraperitoneal pressure in a porcine model. J Neurosurg Pediatr 12:575–581CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Freimann FB, Sprung C (2012) Shunting with gravitational valves-can adjustments end the era of revisions for overdrainage-related events? J Neurosurg 117:1197–1204CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kurtom KH, Magram G (2007) Siphon regulatory devices: their role in the treatment of hydrocephalus. Neurosurg Focus 22:E5CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lemcke J, Meier U, Müller C, Fritsch MJ, Kehler U, Langer N et al (2013) Safety and efficacy of gravitational shunt valves in patients with idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: a pragmatic, randomised, open label, multicentre trial (SVASONA). J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 84:850–857CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Malbrain MLNG (2004) Different techniques to measure intra-abdominal pressure (IAP): time for a critical re-appraisal. Intensive Care Med 30:357–371CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Malbrain MLNG, Cheatham ML, Kirkpatrick A, Sugrue M, Parr M, De Waele J et al (2006) Results from the international conference of experts on intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome. I. Definitions. Intensive Care Med 32:1722–1732CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Meier U, Stengel D, Müller C, Fritsch MJ, Kehler U, Langer N et al (2013) Predictors of subsequent overdrainage and clinical outcomes after ventriculoperitoneal shunting for idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. Neurosurgery 73:1054–1060CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mosteller RD (1987) Simplified calculation of body-surface area. N Engl J Med 317:1098PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Portnoy H (1982) Hydrodynamics of shunts. In: Choux M (ed) Monographs in neural sciences: Symposium on Shunts and Problems in Shunts. Karger, Basel, vol. 8, pp 179–183Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rohde V, Haberl E-J, Ludwig H, Thomale U-W (2009) First experiences with an adjustable gravitational valve in childhood hydrocephalus. J Neurosurg Pediatr 3:90–93CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sahuquillo J, Arikan F, Poca MA, Noguer M, Martinez-Ricarte F (2008) Intra-abdominal pressure: the neglected variable in selecting the ventriculoperitoneal shunt for treating hydrocephalus. Neurosurgery 62:143–149-150Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sanchez NC, Tenofsky PL, Dort JM, Shen LY, Helmer SD, Smith RS (2001) What is normal intra-abdominal pressure? Am Surg 67:243–248PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sugerman H, Windsor A, Bessos M, Wolfe L (1997) Intra-abdominal pressure, sagittal abdominal diameter and obesity comorbidity. J Intern Med 241:71–79CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Toma AK, Tarnaris A, Kitchen ND, Watkins LD (2011) Use of proGAV® shunt valve in normal pressure hydrocephalus. Neurosurgery 68(2 Suppl Operative):245-9Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of NeurosurgeryUniversity Hospital of GöttingenGöttingenGermany

Personalised recommendations