Patterns of Shunt Failure According to the Hydrodynamic Features of the Valve: Lessons from the Shunt Design Trial

  • John R. W. Kestle
  • James M. Drake


In the early 1990s, two new valves came on the market for the management of hydrocephalus. They were designed to limit the tendency to overdrainage and to provide a more physiologic management of hydrocephalus. They were widely used based on reports of reduced shunt failure in uncontrolled series [3,9,10]. The Shunt Design Trial was initiated to compare the function of these valves with that of the differential pressure valves that had been on the market for many years previously. Surgeons from ten pediatric neurosurgery centers in Canada, the United States, and Europe participated in the trial and accrued patients from 1993 to 1995. A total of 344 children less than 18 years old were identified and randomized. All of them had hydrocephalus requiring a single ventriculoperitoneal shunt. Patients were only enrolled in the trial if they were undergoing their first shunt insertion; candidates for shunt revision were not included. The patients were randomized to receive the Orbis-Sigma valve (which at the time was produced by Cordis Corporation), the Delta valve, or a differential pressure valve of the surgeons’ choice (“standard” group).


Subdural Hematoma Shunt Revision Pediatric Neurosurgery Shunt Failure Shunt Insertion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Drake J, Kestle J, Group PHTE: Determining the best CSF shunt valve design — the pediatric valve design trial. Neurosurgery 38:604–606, 1996PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Drake JM, Kestle JR, Milner R, et al: Randomized trial of cerebrospinal fluid shunt valve design in pediatric hydrocephalus. Neurosurgery 43:294–303; discussion 303–305, 1998PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Horton D, Pollay M: Fluid flow performance of a new siphon-control device for ventricular shunts. J Neurosurg 72:926–932, 1990PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kestle J: Clinical trials. World J Surg 23:1205–1209, 1999PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kestle J, Drake J, Milner R, et al: Long-term follow-up data from the Shunt Design Trial. Pediatr Neurosurg 33:230–236, 2000PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kestle J, Milner R, Drake D: An assessment of observer bias in the shunt design trial. Pediatr Neurosurg 30:57–61, 1999PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kestle J, Milner R, Drake J: The shunt design trial: variation in surgical experience did not influence shunt survival. Pediatr Neurosurg 30:283–287, 1999PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sackett D, Haynes R, Guyatt G, et al: Clinical epidemiology. A basic science for clinical medicine, 2nd edn. Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1991Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sainte-Rose C: Shunt obstruction: A preventable complication? Pediatr Neurosurg 19:156–164, 1993PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sainte-Rose C, Hooven M, Hirsch J-F: A new approach in the treatment of hydrocephalus. J Neurosurg 66:213–226, 1987PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tuli S, O’Hayon B, Drake J, et al: Change in ventricular size and effect of ventricular catheter placement in pediatric patients with shunted hydrocephalus. Neurosurg 45:1329–1335, 1999CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • John R. W. Kestle
    • 1
  • James M. Drake
    • 2
  1. 1.Division of Pediatric Neurosurgery, Primary Children’s Medical CenterUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA
  2. 2.Division of Neurosurgery, Hospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations