Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T07:24:11.380Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Clinical testing of CSF circulation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2008

Z. Czosnyka*
Affiliation:
Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Academic Neurosurgery, Cambridge, UK
M. Czosnyka
Affiliation:
Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Academic Neurosurgery, Cambridge, UK
A. Lavinio
Affiliation:
University Teaching Hospital of Brescia, Department of Anaesthesiology & Intensive Care, Italy
N. Keong
Affiliation:
Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Academic Neurosurgery, Cambridge, UK
J. D. Pickard
Affiliation:
Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Academic Neurosurgery, Cambridge, UK
*
Correspondence to: Zofia Czosnyka, Academic Neurosurgery, Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge, UK. E-mail: zc200@medschl.cam.ac.uk; Tel/Fax: +44 1223 216926
Get access

Summary

Since shunting is almost a purely mechanical treatment that radically affects pressure–volume compensation, patients’ cerebrospinal fluid hydrodynamics compensation should be examined before a shunt is implanted. Apart from an opening pressure and a resistance to cerebrospinal fluid outflow, pulse amplitude of intracranial pressure and the content of vasogenic waves are useful to gauge cerebrospinal fluid dynamics. Infusion studies, although invasive, may help with the decision about surgery. They also provide basic information for further management of shunted patients, when complications, such as shunt blockage, under- and over-drainage, arise.

Type
Original Article
Copyright
Copyright © European Society of Anaesthesiology 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Boon, AJ, Tans, JT, Delwel, EJ et al. . Dutch normal-pressure hydrocephalus study: prediction of outcome after shunting by resistance to outflow of cerebrospinal fluid. J Neurosurg 1997; 87: 687693.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Borgesen, SE, Gjerris, F. The predictive value of conductance to outflow of CSF in normal pressure hydrocephalus. Brain 1982; 105: 6586.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Albeck, MJ, Borgesen, SE, Gjerris, F, Schmidt, JF, Sorensen, PS. Intracranial pressure and cerebrospinal fluid outflow conductance in healthy subjects. J Neurosurg 1991; 74: 597600.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Ekstedt, J. CSF hydrodynamic studies in man. Normal hydrodynamic variables related to CSF pressure and flow. J Neurolog Neurosyrg Psychiatry 1978; 41: 345353.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Borgesen, SE, Albeck, MJ, Gjerris, F, Czosnyka, M, Laniewski, P. Computerized infusion test compared to steady pressure constant infusion test in measurement of resistance to CSF outflow. Acta Neurochirurgica 1992; 119: 1216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Katzman, R, Hussey, F. A simple constant infusion manometric test for measurement of CSF absorption. Neurology 1970; 20: 534544.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Tisell, M, Edsbagge, M, Stephensen, H, Czosnyka, M, Wikkelso, C. Elastance correlates with outcome after endoscopic third ventriculostomy in adults with hydrocephalus caused by primary aqueductal stenosis. Neurosurgery 2002; 50: 7076.Google ScholarPubMed
8.Czosnyka, Z, Czosnyka, M, Pickard, JD. Shunt testing in-vivo: a method based on the data from the UK shunt evaluation laboratory. Acta Neurochir Suppl 2002; 81: 2730.Google ScholarPubMed