ArticleActa neurochirurgica2023
The benefits of automated CSF drainage in normal pressure hydrocephalus.
Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 2023. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe commonly used cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage system remains the manual drip-chamber drain. The LiquoGuard (Möller Medical GmbH, Germany) is an automated CSF management device with dual functionality, measuring intracranial pressure and automatic pressure- or volume-led CSF drainage. There is limited research for comparison of devices, particularly in the neurosurgical field, where it has potential to reshape care.
objectiveThis study aims to compare manual drip-chamber drain versus LiquoGuard system, by assessing accuracy of drainage, associated morbidity and impact on length of stay.
methodInclusion criteria consisted of suspected normal pressure hydrocephalus (NPH) patients undergoing extended lumbar drainage. Patients were divided into manual drain group versus automated group.
resultsData was analysed from 42 patients: 31 in the manual group versus 11 in the LiquoGuard group. Volumetric over-drainage was seen in 90.3% (n = 28) versus 0% (p < 0.05), and under-drainage in 38.7% (n = 12) versus 0% (p < 0.05), in the manual and automatic group, respectively. Symptoms of over-drainage were noted in 54.8% (n = 17) of the manual group, all of which had episodes of volumetric over-drainage, versus 18.2% (n = 2) in automated group, of which neither had actual over-drainage (p < 0.05). Higher over-drainage symptoms of manual drain is likely due to increased fluctuation of CSF drainage, instead of smooth CSF drainage seen with LiquoGuard system. An increased length of stay was seen in 38.7% (n = 12) versus 9% (n = 1) (p < 0.05) in the manual and LiquoGuard group, respectively.
conclusionThe LiquoGuard device is a more superior way of CSF drainage in suspected NPH patients, with reduced morbidity and length of stay.
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.