ArticleFluids and barriers of the CNS2026
Catheter architecture as a determinant of cerebrospinal fluid flow in pediatric hydrocephalus.
Article in Fluids and barriers of the CNS, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cerebral ventricular catheters (VCs) remain the critical but failure-prone component of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) shunt systems for pediatric hydrocephalus, with proximal obstruction accounting for most malfunctions. Several catheter geometries have been introduced to the market in the US alone, yet none demonstrate long-term reliability. This study investigates how catheter design interacts with patient-specific ventricular anatomy and surgical placement to influence CSF drainage patterns. Three patient-specific hydrocephalic ventricles were modeled from MRI scans, with FOHR values of 0.45, 0.30, and 0.29 and corresponding ventricular volumes of 167.5 (enlarged), 12.5 (moderate), and 20.6 mL (small). Four ventricular catheters with varying architectures from our institutional biobank were reverse engineered using confocal microscopy. Catheters were virtually implanted into the lateral ventricles under frontal, parietal, and occipital placements. Computational fluid dynamic simulations were performed, and mass flow rates were quantified across drainage holes grouped into longitudinal segments. Boundary conditions consisted of a constant CSF efflux rate of 0.35 mL/min applied uniformly across all configurations and a continuous pressure outlet at the proximal catheter outlet, representing valveless drainage. Occipital placement consistently produced valve adjacent dominant inflow across catheter designs, whereas frontal and parietal placements exhibited design-specific flow behaviors when segmental inflow through the catheter drainage holes was measured. In most configurations, segments nearest the catheter valve captured the majority of inflow, accounting for 65-82% of total CSF entry. In frontal placements, smaller ventricular geometries caused valve-adjacent segments in several catheter designs to extend outside the ventricular cavity. As a result, inflow was redistributed toward the remaining tip-adjacent segments, with up to 99.5% of total flow entering through these segments when valve-adjacent holes were excluded. Catheter designs with shorter perforated lengths and more closely spaced drainage holes maintained a greater number of functionally active segments across ventricular geometries, whereas longer perforated spans were more susceptible to anatomical exclusion. These findings demonstrate that ventricular catheter drainage is governed not by catheter geometry alone, but by the interaction between catheter architecture, ventricular morphology, and surgical placement.
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.