ArticleActa neurochirurgica2022
Non-adjustable gravitational valves or adjustable valves in the treatment of hydrocephalus after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage patients?
Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Method to Guide Pressure Selection for Programmable Pressure Valves after Ventriculoperitoneal Shunt Surgery.Asian journal of neurosurgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeHydrocephalus requiring permanent CSF shunting after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) is frequent. It is unknown which type of valve is optimal. This study evaluates if the revision rate of gravitational differential pressure valves (G-DPVs, GAV® system (B Braun)) (G-DPV) is comparable to adjustable pressure valves (Codman Medos Hakim) (APV) in the treatment of post-aSAH hydrocephalus.
methodsThe use of a gravitational differential pressure valve is placed in direct comparison with an adjustable pressure valve system. A retrospective chart review is performed to compare the revision rates for the two valve systems.
resultsWithin the registry from Radboud University Medical Center, 641 patients with a SAH could be identified from 1 January 2013 until 1 January 2019, whereas at the Heinrich Heine University, 617 patients were identified, totaling 1258 patients who suffered from aSAH. At Radboud University Medical Center, a gravitational differential pressure valve is used, whereas at the Heinrich Heine University, an adjustable pressure valve system is used. One hundred sixty-six (13%) patients required permanent ventricular peritoneal or atrial shunting. Shunt dysfunction occurred in 36 patients: 13 patients of the 53 (25%) of the gravitational shunt cohort, and in 23 of the 113 (20%) patients with an adjustable shunt (p = 0.54). Revision was performed at a mean time of 3.2 months after implantation with the gravitational system and 8.2 months with the adjustable shunt system. Combined rates of over- and underdrainage leading to revision were 7.5% (4/53) for the gravitational and 3.5% (4/113) for the adjustable valve system (p = 0 .27).
conclusionThe current study does not show a benefit of a gravitational pressure valve (GAV® system) over an adjustable pressure valve (CODMAN ® HAKIM®) in the treatment of post-aSAH hydrocephalus. The overall need for revision is high and warrants further improvements in care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.