Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2014 Nov;156(11):2191-9.
doi: 10.1007/s00701-014-2201-y. Epub 2014 Aug 16.

In vitro performance and principles of anti-siphoning devices

Affiliations
Comparative Study

In vitro performance and principles of anti-siphoning devices

Florian Baptist Freimann et al. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2014 Nov.

Abstract

Background: Anti-siphon devices (ASDs) of various working principles were developed to overcome overdrainage-related complications associated with ventriculoperitoneal shunting.

Objective: We aimed to provide comparative data on the pressure and flow characteristics of six different types of ASDs (gravity-assisted, membrane-controlled, and flow-regulated) in order to achieve a better understanding of these devices and their potential clinical application.

Methods: We analyzed three gravity-dependent ASDs (ShuntAssistant [SA], Miethke; Gravity Compensating Accessory [GCA], Integra; SiphonX [SX], Sophysa), two membrane-controlled ASDs (Anti-Siphon Device [IASD], Integra; Delta Chamber [DC], Medtronic), and one flow-regulated ASD (SiphonGuard [SG], Codman). Defined pressure conditions within a simulated shunt system were generated (differential pressure 10-80 cmH2O), and the specific flow and pressure characteristics were measured. In addition, the gravity-dependent ASDs were measured in defined spatial positions (0-90°).

Results: The flow characteristics of the three gravity-assisted ASDs were largely dependent upon differential pressure and on their spatial position. All three devices were able to reduce the siphoning effect, but each to a different extent (flow at inflow pressure: 10 cmH2O, siphoning -20 cmH2O at 0°/90°: SA, 7.1 ± 1.2*/2.3 ± 0.5* ml/min; GCA, 10.5 ± 0.8/3.4 ± 0.4* ml/min; SX, 9.5 ± 1.2*/4.7 ± 1.9* ml/min, compared to control, 11.1 ± 0.4 ml/min [*p < 0.05]). The flow characteristics of the remaining ASDs were primarily dependent upon the inflow pressure effect (flow at 10 cmH2O, siphoning 0 cmH2O/ siphoning -20cmH2O: DC, 2.6 ± 0.1/ 4 ± 0.3* ml/min; IASD, 2.5 ± 0.2/ 0.8 ± 0.4* ml/min; SG, 0.8 ± 0.2*/ 0.2 ± 0.1* ml/min [*p < 0.05 vs. control, respectively]).

Conclusion: The tested ASDs were able to control the siphoning effect within a simulated shunt system to differing degrees. Future comparative trials are needed to determine the type of device that is superior for clinical application.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources