A non-invasive method of assessing intracranial pressure (ICP) would be of benefit to patients with abnormal cerebral pathology that could give rise to changes in ICP. In particular, it would assist the regular monitoring of hydrocephalus patients. This study evaluated a technique using tympanic membrane displacement (TMD) measurements, which has been reported to provide a reliable, non-invasive measure of ICP. A group of 135 hydrocephalus patients was studied, as well as 13 patients with benign intracranial hypertension and a control group of 77 volunteers. TMD measurements were carried out using the Marchbanks measurement system analyser and compared between the groups. In 36 patients, invasive measurements of ICP carried out at the same time were compared with the TMD values. A highly significant relationship was found between TMD and ICP but intersubject variability was high and the predictive value of the technique low. Taking the normal range of ICP to be 10-15 mmHg, the predictive limits of the regression are an order of magnitude wider than this and therefore Vm cannot be used as a surrogate for ICP. In conclusion, TMD measurements do not provide a reliable non-invasive measure of ICP in patients with shunted hydrocephalus.

No abstract

No abstract

The Spiegelberg brain pressure catheter is a low cost implantable intracranial pressure measuring system which has the unique ability to perform regular automatic zeroing. A new version of the catheter has become available with a subdural bolt fixation to allow insertion of the device into the brain parenchyma. The accuracy of this system has been evaluated in comparison with a ventricular fluid pressure method in a series of patients to determine its accuracy and utility in the clinical environment.Hourly readings from the Spiegelberg system have been compared with those obtained using a standard pressure transducer connected to an external ventricular drain. Measurements continued while there was a clinical need for CSF drainage.Eleven patients were recruited to the study and data were recorded for periods ranging from 40 to 111 hours. A good agreement between the two systems was obtained. In 10 cases the mean diVerence was less than ±1.5 mm Hg and the dynamic changes in value were contemporaneous. In one case an intracerebral haemorrhage developed around the tips of the Spiegelberg catheter and significant diVerences occurred between the two methods of measurement.In conclusion, the Spiegelberg parenchymal transducer provides an accurate measurement of intracranial pressure when compared with ventricular pressure. The transducer was found to be robust in the clinical environment and very popular with the nursing staV. Further studies may determine whether the complication rate of this system is comparable with other available devices. (J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2001;71:383-385)

The aim of this study was to determine the in vivo accuracy and reliability of intracranial pressure (ICP) measurement using the Codman MicroSensor by comparison with the Camino ICP transducer and associated clinical and radiological information. Paired ICP readings were recorded every minute in 17 patients. A total of 56,790 validated paired measurements were obtained over a wide range of ICP values (- 16 mm Hg to 114 mm Hg). Recording periods ranged from 3 hours to 6 days (median 41 hours). In 11 patients the MicroSensor and Camino readings were in good agreement. Paired readings were within 10 mmHg for 99% of the recording time and both readings were compatible with clinical intracranial events at all times (in one case it was not possible to verify the clinical information). In six patients large differences occurred between transducer readings (> 10 mm Hg apart for 41% of the recording period). In one case, either reading could have been compatible with intracranial clinical events. In two cases, although both readings were comparable, Camino readings were more consistent with clinical and radiological findings. In three cases, the MicroSensor readings were inconsistent with the clinical condition of the patients whereas the Camino readings were compatible. These results suggest that, during routine clinical use in our department, the MicroSensor provided misleading information in 18% of our patients and thus is not sufficiently reliable for routine use in the detection of adverse clinical events.