Intervention Review

You have free access to this content

Flow-regulated versus differential pressure-regulated shunt valves for adult patients with normal pressure hydrocephalus

  1. Morten Ziebell1,*,
  2. Jørn Wetterslev2,
  3. Magnus Tisell3,
  4. Christian Gluud4,
  5. Marianne Juhler1

Editorial Group: Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group

Published Online: 31 MAY 2013

Assessed as up-to-date: 25 JAN 2013

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009706.pub2


How to Cite

Ziebell M, Wetterslev J, Tisell M, Gluud C, Juhler M. Flow-regulated versus differential pressure-regulated shunt valves for adult patients with normal pressure hydrocephalus. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 5. Art. No.: CD009706. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009706.pub2.

Author Information

  1. 1

    Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Department of Neurosurgery, Copenhagen, Denmark

  2. 2

    Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, Department 7812, Copenhagen, Denmark

  3. 3

    Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Department of Neurosurgery, Institute of Clinical Neurosciences, Göteborg, Sweden

  4. 4

    Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, Department 7812, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group, Copenhagen, Denmark

*Morten Ziebell, Department of Neurosurgery, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Blegsdamsvej 9, Copenhagen, 2100, Denmark. ziebell@nru.dk.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: New
  2. Published Online: 31 MAY 2013

SEARCH

 
Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study ID]

StudyReason for exclusion

Boon 1997Randomised clinical trial comparing low-pressure versus medium-pressure shunts in 101 normal pressure hydrocephalus participants. Boths systems are differential-pressure valves.

Boon 1998Same trial as Boon 1997, although reporting on only 96 participants.

Farahmand 2009Not a randomised trial. A prospective study on 450 participants with hydrocephalus in any form. Six flow-regulated valve participants were compared with 443 differential-pressure valve participants. No statistically significant difference in revision was noted.

Lund-Johansen 1994Retrospective study of 95 mixed hydrocephalus participants (25 normal pressure hydrocephalus). 40 flow-regulated valve participants compared with 55 differential-pressure valve participants. No statistically significant difference in revision.

Meier 2006aAn open prospective trial to determine the optimal opening pressure for pressure-relief valves used in shunts for normal pressure hydrocephalus.

Meier 2006bSame trial as Meier 2006a.

Meier 2010Randomised multicentre trial comparing programmable differential-pressure valves with and without anti-gravity unit in 152 participants with idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus.

Meier 2011Same trial as Meier 2010, although only 133 participants were described.

Pollack 1999Randomised clinical trial to assess safety of a specific differential-pressure programmable shunt (experimental) versus differential-pressure and flow-regulated shunt valves (control). Included 377 participants with varying causes of hydrocephalus; separate results for those with NPH not given. No randomisation between differential-pressure (n = 178) and flow-regulated shunt valves (n = 5) in control group.

Weiner 1995Retrospective study of 37 idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus participants comparing differential-pressure programmable shunt versus differential-pressure and flow-regulated shunt valves. Not a randomised trial.

 
Characteristics of ongoing studies [ordered by study ID]
Lemcke 2012

Trial name or titleOn the method of a randomised comparison of programmable valves with and without anti-gravitational units: The SVASONA trial.

MethodsRandomised clinical trial.

ParticipantsNormal pressure hydrocephalus.

InterventionsProgramable shunt with and without gravitational unit.

OutcomesClinical outcome.

Starting date

Contact information

Notes

Toma 2011

Trial name or titleConservative versus surgical management of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: a prospective double-blind randomised clinical trial: trial protocol.

MethodsRCT.

ParticipantsIdiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus.

InterventionsConservative versus surgical management of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus.

OutcomesPrimary is clinical outcome (improvement in gait).

Starting date

Contact information

Notes