Abstract
Background
The Miethke Sensor Reservoir sits within a ventriculoperitoneal shunt system to give a reading of the pressure within the shunt. This information can guide the management of hydrocephalus patients who present frequently with headaches.
Methods
We reviewed a cohort of 12 patients who underwent implantation of a Sensor Reservoir to assess how the management of their symptoms changed over a 4-year period.
Results
When comparing the group before the Sensor Reservoir and after the Sensor Reservoir insertion, there was a 75% reduction in number of CT head scans (P<0.05), 100% reduction in episodes of ICP monitoring (P<0.05), 55% reduction in number of X-ray shunt series, and a 50% reduction in acute presentation to hospital with shunt-related symptoms. The number of clinic attendances increased by 44%. In addition, cost analysis showed a saving of £6952 per patients over the 2-year period following Sensor Reservoir insertion as a result of reduced admissions and investigations. Complications were seen in 3 patients—two patients developed shunt-related infections, and 1 patient underwent shunt revision due to a proximal shunt obstruction. Seventy-five percent of patients showed an improvement in their symptoms at the end of the 4-year period.
Conclusion
Implantation of a Sensor Reservoir in shunt patients with chronic headaches can reduce the number of investigations and hospital admissions and guide management resulting in a clinical improvement.
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- SR:
-
Sensor Reservoir
- ICP:
-
Intracranial pressure
References
Andresen M, Hadi A, Petersen LG, Juhler M (2014) Effect of postural changes on ICP in healthy and ill subjects. Acta Neurochir 157:109–113
Antes S, Stadie A, Müller S, Linsler S, Breuskin D, Oertel J (2018) Intracranial pressure–guided shunt valve adjustments with the Miethke Sensor Reservoir. World Neurosurg 109:642–650
Antes S, Tschan CA, Heckelmann M, Breuskin D, Oertel J (2016) Telemetric intracranial pressure monitoring with the Raumedic Neurovent P-tel. World Neurosurg 91:133–148
Antes S, Tschan CA, Kunze G et al (2014) Clinical and radiological findings in long-term intracranial pressure monitoring. Acta Neurochir 156:1009–1019
Barami K, Sood S (2016) The cerebral venous system and the postural regulation of intracranial pressure: implications in the management of patients with cerebrospinal fluid diversion. Childs Nerv Syst 32:599–607
Barber JM, Pringle CJ, Raffalli-Ebezant H, Pathmanaban O, Ramirez R, Kamaly-Asl ID (2016) Telemetric intra-cranial pressure monitoring: clinical and financial considerations. Br J Neurosurg 31:300–306
Chapman PH, Cosman ER, Arnold MA (1990) The relationship between ventricular fluid pressure and body position in normal subjects and subjects with shunts. Neurosurgery 26:181–189
Dimitriou J, Levivier M, Gugliotta M (2016) Comparison of complications in patients receiving different types of intracranial pressure monitoring: a retrospective study in a single center in Switzerland. World Neurosurg 89:641–646
Freimann FB, Schulz M, Haberl H, Thomale UW (2013) Feasibility of telemetric ICP-guided valve adjustments for complex shunt therapy. Childs Nerv Syst 30:689–697
Fritsch MJ, Arouk W (2017) Telemetric pressure monitoring: the role in the clinical management of hydrocephalus. Fluids Barriers CNS 14(Suppl 1):A26
Garton HJL, Kestle JRW, Drake JM (2001) Predicting shunt failure on the basis of clinical symptoms and signs in children. J Neurosurg 94:202–210
Guyot LL, Dowling C, Diaz FG, Michael DB (1998) Cerebral monitoring devices: analysis of complications. Intracranial Press Neuromonitoring Brain Injury 71:47–49
Kiefer M, Antes S, Schmitt M, Krause I, Eymann R (2011) Long-term performance of a CE-approved telemetric intracranial pressure monitoring. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2011:2246–2249
Koskinen LD, Grayson D, Olivecrona M (2013) The complications and the position of the Codman MicroSensor™ ICP device: an analysis of 549 patients and 650 Sensors. Acta Neurochir 155:2141–2148
Lilja-Cyron A, Kelsen J, Andresen M, Fugleholm K, Juhler M (2018) Feasibility of telemetric intracranial pressure monitoring in the neuro intensive care unit. J Neurotrauma 35:1578–1586
Mallucci CL, Jenkinson MD, Conroy EJ, Hartley JC, Brown M, Dalton J, Gamble C (2019) Antibiotic or silver versus standard ventriculoperitoneal shunts (BASICS): a multicentre, single-blinded, randomised trial and economic evaluation. Lancet 394:1530–1539
Müller S, Freimann FB, Brelie C, Rohde V, Schatlo B (2019) Test-retest reliability of outpatient telemetric intracranial pressure measurements in shunt-dependent patients with hydrocephalus and idiopathic intracranial hypertension. World Neurosurg 131:74–80
Norager NH, Lilja-Cyron A, Bjarkam CR, Duus S, Juhler M (2018) Telemetry in intracranial pressure monitoring: sensor survival and drift. Acta Neurochir 160:2137–2144
Norager NH, Lilja-Cyron A, Hansen TS, Juhler M (2019) Deciding on the appropriate telemetric intracranial pressure monitoring system. World Neurosurg 126:564–569
Oertel JMK, Huelser MJM (2019) Telemetric home monitoring of intracranial pressure—where are we now. Acta Neurochir 161:1603–1604
Paff M, Abrams D, Muhonen LW (2018) Ventriculoperitoneal shunt complications: a review. Interdisc Neurosurg 13:66–70
Pople IK, Muhlbauer MS, Sanford RA, Kirk E (1995) Results and complications of intracranial pressure monitoring in 303 children. Pediatr Neurosurg 23:64–67
Reddy GK, Bollam P, Caldito G (2014) Long-term outcomes of ventriculoperitoneal shunt surgery in patients with hydrocephalus. World Neurosurg 81:404–410
Reddy GK, Bollam P, Shi R, Guthikonda B, Nanda A (2011) Management of adult hydrocephalus with ventriculoperitoneal shunts: long-term single-institution experience. Neurosurgery 69:774–781
Rekate HL (1993) Classification of slit-ventricle syndromes using intracranial pressure monitoring. Pediatr Neurosurg 19:15–20
Rekate HL (2008) Shunt-related headaches: the slit ventricle syndromes. Childs Nerv Syst 24:423–430
Rekate HL, Kranz D (2009) Headaches in patients with shunts. Semin Pediatr Neurol 16:27–30
Sainz LV, Hockel K, Schuhmann MU (2017) Chronic overdrainage syndrome: pathophysiological insights based on ICP analysis: a case-based review. Childs Nerv Syst 34:401–408
Schmitt M, Kiefer M, Antes S, Eymann R (2012) Detection of hidden pseudotumour cerebri behind Chiari 1 malformation: value of telemetric ICP monitoring. Childs Nerv Syst 28:1811–1813
Spirig JM, Frank MN, Regli L, Stieglitz LH (2017) Shunt age-related complications in adult patients with suspected shunt dysfunction. A recommended diagnostic workup. Acta Neurochir 159:1421–1428
Stone JJ, Walker CT, Jacobson M, Phillips V, Silberstein HJ (2013) Revision rate of pediatric ventriculoperitoneal shunts after 15 years. J Neurosurg Pediatr 11:15–19
Tavakoli S, Peitz G, Ares W, Hafeez S, Grandhi R (2017) Complications of invasive intracranial pressure monitoring devices in neurocritical care. Neurosurg Focus 43(5):E6
Thompson SD, Thorne LD, Toma AK, Watkins LD (2016) Telemetric monitoring of ICP within a shunt system. A single centre experience including the first in vivo comparison versus conventional intraparenchymal monitoring. Fluids Barriers CNS 14(suppl 1):A26
Volovici V, Huijben JA, Ercole A, Stocchetti N, Dirven CMF, Jagt M, Steyerberg EW, Lingsma HK, Menon DK, Maas AIR, Haitsma I (2018) Ventricular drainage catheters versus intracranial parenchymal catheters for intracranial pressure monitoring-based management of traumatic brain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neurotrauma 36:988–995
Wu Y, Green NL, Wrensch MR, Zhao S, Gupta N (2007) Ventriculoperitoneal shunt complications in California. Neurosurgery 61:557–563
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Mr Saurabh Sinha for his critical appraisal of this study, Ms Sally-Ann Collins who provided and cared for study patients, and Mr Mark Sutherland for statistical support.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Conflict of interest
All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements), or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge, or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This article is part of the Topical Collection on CSF Circulation
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bjornson, A., Henderson, D., Lawrence, E. et al. The Sensor Reservoir—does it change management?. Acta Neurochir 163, 1087–1095 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-021-04729-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-021-04729-y