A counterforce to diversion of cerebrospinal fluid during ventriculoperitoneal shunting: the intraperitoneal pressure. An observational study
- 48 Downloads
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.
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.
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).
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.
KeywordsHydrocephalus Intraperitoneal pressure Overdrainage Ventriculoperitoneal shunt
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.
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 was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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