INTRODUCTION: LiquoGuard is a new device for intracranial pressure (ICP)-controlled drainage of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). This present study evaluates the accuracy of ICP measurement via the LiquoGuard device in comparison with Spiegelberg. Thus, we compared data ascertained from simultaneous measurement of ICP using tip-transducer and tip-sensor devices. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 1,764 monitoring hours in 15 patients (range, 52-219 h) were analysed. All patients received an intraventricular Spiegelberg III probe with the drainage catheter connected to the LiquoGuard system. ICP reading of both devices was performed on an hourly basis. Statistical analysis was done by applying Pearson correlation and Wilcoxon-matched pair test (p < 0.05). RESULTS: Mean ICP values were 11 ± 5 mmHg (Spiegelberg) and 10 ± 7 mmHg (LiquoGuard); the values measured with both devices correlated well (p = 0.001; Pearson correlation =0.349; n = 1,764). In two of the 15 patients with slit ventricles, episodes of significant differences in measured values could be observed. Both patients suffering from slit ventricles failed to produce reliable measurement with the external transducer of the LiquoGuard. CONCLUSIONS: LiquoGuard is a valuable new device for ICP-controlled CSF drainage. However, LiquoGuard tends to provide misleading results in slit ventricles. Thus, before these drawbacks are further analysed, the authors recommend additional ICP measurement with internal tip-sensor devices to avoid dangerous erroneous interpretation of ICP data.
INTRODUCTION: LiquoGuard is a new device for intracranial pressure (ICP)-controlled drainage of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). This present study evaluates the accuracy of ICP measurement via the LiquoGuard device in comparison with Spiegelberg. Thus, we compared data ascertained from simultaneous measurement of ICP using tip-transducer and tip-sensor devices. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 1,764 monitoring hours in 15 patients (range, 52-219 h) were analysed. All patients received an intraventricular Spiegelberg III probe with the drainage catheter connected to the LiquoGuard system. ICP reading of both devices was performed on an hourly basis. Statistical analysis was done by applying Pearson correlation and Wilcoxon-matched pair test (p < 0.05). RESULTS: Mean ICP values were 11 ± 5 mmHg (Spiegelberg) and 10 ± 7 mmHg (LiquoGuard); the values measured with both devices correlated well (p = 0.001; Pearson correlation =0.349; n = 1,764). In two of the 15 patients with slit ventricles, episodes of significant differences in measured values could be observed. Both patients suffering from slit ventricles failed to produce reliable measurement with the external transducer of the LiquoGuard. CONCLUSIONS: LiquoGuard is a valuable new device for ICP-controlled CSF drainage. However, LiquoGuard tends to provide misleading results in slit ventricles. Thus, before these drawbacks are further analysed, the authors recommend additional ICP measurement with internal tip-sensor devices to avoid dangerous erroneous interpretation of ICP data.
Authors: Sebastian Arts; Martine van Bilsen; Erik J van Lindert; Ronald Hma Bartels; Rene Aquarius; Hieronymus D Boogaarts Journal: Brain Sci Date: 2021-05-22