Introduction: Ventriculoperitoneal shunt (VPS) malfunction rates are as high as 40% in the first year with posthemorrhagic hydrocephalus (PHH) patients having the highest proximal occlusion risk. Debris, protein, and cellular ingrowth most commonly obstruct the proximal ventricular catheter and/or valve. Historically, no preventative methods have demonstrated efficacy. We present a technical note and case series describing the use of a retrograde proximal flushing device and prophylactic flushing protocol to maintain ventricular catheter patency and reduce proximal shunt occlusions. Methods: We present our 2.8–4-year follow-up data on the first 9 pediatric cases of ReFlow (Anuncia Inc, Scottsdale, AZ) device implantation combined with routine prophylactic flushing. Rationale for device implantation, patient selection, surgical procedure details, postoperative follow-up, and prophylactic flushing protocol are discussed as well as pre- and postimplantation ventricular catheter obstruction rates. We include a technical note on the device setup and prophylactic flushing protocol. Results: Patient average age was 5.6 years and all patients had PHH. Minimal follow-up was 2.8 years (range 2.8–4 years). Prophylactic flushing was initiated between 2 and 14 days after ReFlow implantation and has continued as of the last follow-up. In 7 patients, ReFlow implantation occurred during the revision of an existing shunt and in two, implantation was coincident with initial VPS placement. In the 2 years preceding ReFlow and prophylactic flushing, 14 proximal shunt failures occurred in the 7 patients with existing VPS. This was reduced to only one proximal shunt failure in all 9 patients during the full follow-up period after ReFlow and prophylactic flushing. Conclusion: Pediatric VPS placement carries high rates of proximal catheter occlusion, often leading to emergency surgery, morbidity, or even death. The ReFlow device along with routine prophylactic flushing may reduce proximal obstruction and need for revision surgery. Higher patient numbers and longer follow-up periods are necessary to further elucidate the safety and effect of such a device on longer term shunt failures and revision surgery.