ArticleActa neurochirurgica2025
PUMP study: reservoir pumping in suspected underdrained shunted patients with normal pressure hydrocephalus - a prospective single-center study.
Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSuboptimal improvement or secondary deterioration is frequently observed in patients with shunted normal pressure hydrocephalus (NPH). The non-invasive tap test ("pumping-test") performed via the flushing reservoir of shunts may represent an alternative to invasive diagnostic procedures for detecting underdrainage. The aim of this study was to demonstrate its efficacy and potential to reduce the need for invasive diagnostic tests.
methodsA prospective study was conducted on 25 NPH patients who had been shunted with a "Sprung-Reservoir" and a proGAV 2.0 and in whom underdrainage was suspected. By performing 100 pumps, approximately 20 ml of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) was withdrawn from the ventricles. Immediate effects were assessed through gait examinations after 10 min, and changes over one week were evaluated using observation sheets completed by patients and/or caregivers. Based on the results and subsequent clinical decisions, the extent to which invasive tests could be avoided was determined.
resultsThe test was feasible in all patients. It was well tolerated, with no side effects or discomfort in 21 patients. Temporary headaches occurred in 1 patient, and dizziness lasting less than 5 min was reported in 3 patients. Improvement after 10 min was observed in 11 patients; in 8 of these cases, the shunt valve was immediately downregulated. The remaining 17 patients were provided with observation sheets: 6 showed no improvement, 7 reported temporary improvement, and 4 experienced sustained improvement. Patients with temporary improvement were offered valve downregulation, while those with sustained improvement were advised to return only if new symptoms developed. Patients with no improvement were put to further follow-up and possibly offered invasive tests for further clarification. Consequently, the pumping test enabled avoidance of invasive testing in 19 cases (76%).
conclusionThe pumping test proved to be safe, effective, and capable of providing rapid clinical feedback. The additional use of observation sheets supports the monitoring of delayed effects. More invasive and costly tests can often be avoided-76% in this study. This non-invasive tap test should be considered a first-line diagnostic procedure in cases of suspected underdrainage, at least in NPH patients, before pursuing invasive diagnostics. However, not all flushing reservoirs are suitable for this "pumping test."
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.