Deciding on Appropriate Telemetric Intracranial Pressure Monitoring System.
Abnormalities, Multiple
Adult
Ambulatory Care
/ economics
Cerebrospinal Fluid Shunts
Child
Equipment Design
Female
Humans
Hydrocephalus
/ diagnosis
Intracranial Hypertension
/ diagnosis
Intracranial Pressure
/ physiology
Male
Manometry
/ economics
Monitoring, Physiologic
/ economics
Nervous System Malformations
/ physiopathology
Specimen Handling
Telemetry
/ economics
Transducers
Hydrocephalus
ICP
Intracranial hypertension
Intracranial pressure
Telemetric
Telemetry
Journal
World neurosurgery
ISSN: 1878-8769
Titre abrégé: World Neurosurg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101528275
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2019
Jun 2019
Historique:
received:
18
01
2019
revised:
07
03
2019
accepted:
08
03
2019
pubmed:
23
3
2019
medline:
21
1
2020
entrez:
23
3
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The clinical advantage of telemetric intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring has previously been limited by issues with inaccuracy and zero-drift. Today, 2 comparable telemetric ICP monitoring systems are available performing adequately in these parameters. The objective of this study is to identify appropriate uses of each system. The 2 telemetric ICP monitoring systems from Raumedic (implant: Neurovent-P-tel) and Miethke (implant: Sensor Reservoir) are compared in terms of fundamental differences, sensor survival, monitoring possibilities, complications, and cost/benefit. Two illustrative cases are presented highlighting clinical advantages and disadvantages of each system. Both systems provide transdermal (telemetric) ICP measurements through external application of a reader unit cabled to a portable data sampler. Thereby, they allow several ICP monitoring sessions without multiple surgical insertions of a cabled ICP sensor. The Miethke implant has a high sampling frequency (40 Hz) and a long CE (Conformité Européenne) approval (3 years) but cannot be used for long-duration monitoring sessions. In comparison, the Raumedic implant has a lower sampling frequency (5 Hz) and shorter CE approval (90 days) but can be used for long-duration monitoring sessions. The standard 3-year cost for a patient with a Neurovent-P-tel is 17,380 €, and for the Sensor Reservoir it is 15,790 €. The Miethke system is useful in outpatient clinics where patients have sequential point measurements of ICP performed, whereas the Raumedic system is ideal for long-duration ICP monitoring outside the hospital. When choosing between the 2 systems, it must primarily be decided if the clinical situation requires long-duration monitoring sessions or continuous repeated ambulatory follow-up sessions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The clinical advantage of telemetric intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring has previously been limited by issues with inaccuracy and zero-drift. Today, 2 comparable telemetric ICP monitoring systems are available performing adequately in these parameters. The objective of this study is to identify appropriate uses of each system.
METHODS
METHODS
The 2 telemetric ICP monitoring systems from Raumedic (implant: Neurovent-P-tel) and Miethke (implant: Sensor Reservoir) are compared in terms of fundamental differences, sensor survival, monitoring possibilities, complications, and cost/benefit. Two illustrative cases are presented highlighting clinical advantages and disadvantages of each system.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Both systems provide transdermal (telemetric) ICP measurements through external application of a reader unit cabled to a portable data sampler. Thereby, they allow several ICP monitoring sessions without multiple surgical insertions of a cabled ICP sensor. The Miethke implant has a high sampling frequency (40 Hz) and a long CE (Conformité Européenne) approval (3 years) but cannot be used for long-duration monitoring sessions. In comparison, the Raumedic implant has a lower sampling frequency (5 Hz) and shorter CE approval (90 days) but can be used for long-duration monitoring sessions. The standard 3-year cost for a patient with a Neurovent-P-tel is 17,380 €, and for the Sensor Reservoir it is 15,790 €.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The Miethke system is useful in outpatient clinics where patients have sequential point measurements of ICP performed, whereas the Raumedic system is ideal for long-duration ICP monitoring outside the hospital. When choosing between the 2 systems, it must primarily be decided if the clinical situation requires long-duration monitoring sessions or continuous repeated ambulatory follow-up sessions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30898734
pii: S1878-8750(19)30738-7
doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2019.03.077
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Case Reports
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
564-569Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.