Optimization of Codman® Hakim® adjustable valve radiography
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7577/radopen.1998Keywords:
hydrocephalus, optimization, positioning, shunt radiography, stents and prostheses, ventriculo-atrial shuntAbstract
Purpose
Cerebrospinal fluid shunt valves is an important tool in hydrocephalus treatment. Adjustable valves, sensitive to MRI, are onerous. They need be controlled; in case of re-settings. The vendor give advices for the radiographic procedure; however, hospitals use variations. The purpose was to investigate the different variations.
Method
Eight images consisting combinations of protocol features, were subjectively and anonymous rated for image quality. The panel consisted of 60 professionals; 50 radiographers and 10 radiologists, from two hospitals doing neurosurgery services. Signal-to-noise ratio compared the level of desired signal to the level of background noise.
Results
348 scores were distributed onto all eight images, revealing the image quality difference was within acceptance. Options as valve on the head side near to the detector versus far to; differing geometry, use of head bowl versus not use, air-gap versus grids, were favored by both professional groups and at both hospitals in a clear priority image, given 2.5 times scores over average (108/43). Noise, revealed being the strongest indicator for priority of the best image for shunt evaluation.
Conclusions
It is a potential to improve image optimization in shunt radiography.
References
11. Trinh VT, Duckworth EAM. Revision to an adjustable non-siphon control valve in low pressure hydrocephalus: Therapeutic siphoning and a new perspective on NPH: Series of 3 cases and review of the literature. Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery. 2013;115(2):175-8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2012.05.017
2. Poca MA, Sahuquillo J. Short-term medical management of hydrocephalus. Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy. 2005;6(9):1525-38.
https://doi.org/10.1517/14656566.6.9.1525
3. Tiller C MS, Lundar T. Nevrokirurgisk shuntbehandling av barn med hydrocephalus. Tidsskrift Norske Legeforening. 2000(11); 120:1298-302
4. Lollis SS, Mamourian AC, Vaccaro TJ, Duhaime A-C. Programmable CSF Shunt Valves: Radiographic Identification and Interpretation. American Journal of Neuroradiology. 2010;31(7):1343-6. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A1997
5. Symss NPO, S. Is there an ideal shunt? A panoramic view of 110 years in CSF diversions and shunt systems used for the treatment of hydrocephalus: from historical events to current trends. Childs Nervous System. 2015;31(2):191-202.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-014-2608-z
6. Fernell E, von Wendt L, Serlo W, Heikkinen E, Andersson H. Ventriculoatrial or ventriculoperitoneal shunts in the treatment of hydrocephalus in children?
European Journal of Pediatric Surgery 1985; 40: 12-14
https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2008-1059758
7. Brean A, Fredo HL, Sollid S, Muller T, Sundstrom T, Eide PK. Five-year incidence of surgery for idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus in Norway. Acta Neurologica Scandinavia. 2009;120(5):314-6.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0404.2009.01250.x
8. CODMAN® HAKIM® Programmable Valve for Hydrocephalus. Procedure Guide. DePuy Synthes Institute©, DePuy Synthes Companies, 2011. Codman and Shurtleff Inc, 325 Paramont Drive, Raynham, MA 02767, USA. Cited 201605.09; http://bit.ly/2of7zHB
9. Fryback DG, Thornbury JR. The Efficacy of Diagnostic Imaging. Medical Decision Making. 1991;11(2):88-94. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X9101100203
10. Maller VV, Gray RI. Noncommunicating Hydrocephalus. Seminars in Ultrasound, CT and MRI. 2016;37(2):109-19. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sult.2015.12.004
11. Capitanio JF, Venier A, Mazzeo LA, Barzaghi LR, Acerno S, Mortini P. Prosepective Study to Evaluate Rate and Frequency of Perturbations of Implanted Programmable Hakim Codman Valve After 1.5-Tesla Magnetic Resonance Imaging. World Neurosurgery. 2016;88:297-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2015.09.082
12. Vyborny CJ. Image quality and the clinical radiographic examination. Radiographics. 1997;17(2):479-98. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiographics.17.2.9084085
13. Davey E, England A. AP versus PA positioning in lumbar spine computed radiography: Image quality and individual organ doses. Radiography. 2015;21(2):188-96.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2014.11.003
14. Artis zee Multi-purpose System Internet: Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc; 2016. Cited 2016.04.02. Available from: http://usa.healthcare.siemens.com/refurbished-systems-medical-imaging-and-therapy/angiography-ecoline/multi-purpose-angiography-ecoline/artis-zee-multi-purpose-system-eco
15. CODMAN® HAKIM® Programmable Valve for Hydrocephalus. Procedure Guide. DePuy Synthes Institute©, DePuy Synthes Companies, 2011. Codman and Shurtleff Inc, 325 Paramont Drive, Raynham, MA 02767, USA. Cited 201605.09; http://bit.ly/2of7zHB
16. Phantom Patient Internet: Supertech, Inc; 2016 [updated 2016; cited 2016 0123]. Available from: http://www.supertechx-ray.com/Anthropomorphic/FullBodyPhantoms/PhantomLabsPhantomPatient.php
17. Coated occipital adult head support pad Internet: ShureMed; 2016 [updated 2016; cited 2016 0123]. Available from: http://www.schuremed.com/Coated/Coated-Occipital-Adult-Head-Support-Pad/
18. DICOM Internet: NEMA; 2016 [updated 2016; cited 2016 0302]. Available from: http://dicom.nema.org/
19. Image processing and analysis in Java Internet: National Institutes of Health; 2016 [updated 20160503; cited 2016 0305]. Available from: https://imagej.nih.gov/ij/
20. Krupinski EA, Roehrig H, Dallas W, Fan J. Differential use of image enhancement techniques by experienced and inexperienced observers. J Digit Imaging. 2005;18(4):311-5.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-005-7666-z
21. SECTRA PACS: SECTRA AB; 2016 [updated 20160419; cited 2016 0502]. Available from: https://www.sectra.com/medical/diagnostic_imaging/solutions/ris-pacs/
22. Syngo.Via Internet: Siemens Healthcare GmbH; 2016 [updated 2016; cited 2016 0422]. Available from: http://www.healthcare.siemens.com/medical-imaging-it/syngovia/syngovia
23. Ludewig E, Richter A, Frame M. Diagnostic imaging--evaluating image quality using visual grading characteristic (VGC) analysis. Vet Res Commun. 2010;34(5):473-9.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11259-010-9413-2
24. Desai KR, Babb JS, Amodio JB. The utility of the plain radiograph "shunt series" in the evaluation of suspected ventriculoperitoneal shunt failure in pediatric patients. Pediatr Radiol. 2007;37(5):452-6.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-007-0431-3
25. McQuillen-Martensen K. Radiographic Critique. Pennsylvania: W.B. Saunders Company; 1996.
26. Bushong SC. Radiologic Science for Technologists: Physics, Biology, and Protection. 10th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier Mosby; 2013.
27. Bontrager KL, Lampignano J. Radiographic Positioning and Related Anatomy. 8th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier Mosby; 2013.
28. Koutalonis M, Delis H, Pascoal A, Spyrou G, Costaridou L, Panayiotakis G. Can electronic zoom replace magnification in mammography? A comparative Monte Carlo study. British Journal of Radiology. 2010;83(991):569-77. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/21753020
29. Kim MJ, Youk JH, Kang DR, Choi SH, Kwak JY, Son EJ, et al. Zooming method (x 2.0) of digital mammography vs digital magnification view (x 1.8) in full-field digital mammography for the diagnosis of microcalcifications. The British Journal of Radiology. 2010;83(990):486-92. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/16967819
30. Alkhalifah KH, Brindhaban A, Asbeutah AM. Comparison between image quality in electronic zoom and geometric magnification in digital mammography. Journal of X-ray Science and Technology. 2016;24(5):681-9. https://doi.org/10.3233/XST-160580
31. Gould RG, Hale J. Control of scattered radiation by air gap techniques: Applications to chest radiography. American Journal of Roentgenology. 1974;122(1):109-18.
https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.122.1.109
32. Gormez O, Yilmaz HH. Image Post-Processing in Dental Practice. European Journal of Dentistry. 2009;3(4):343-7.
33. Pooley RA, McKinney JM, Miller DA. The AAPM/RSNA Physics Tutorial for Residents. RadioGraphics. 2001;21(2):521-34. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiographics.21.2.g01mr20521
34. Huda W, Abrahams RB. Radiographic Techniques, Contrast, and Noise in X-Ray Imaging. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2015;204(2):W126-W31. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.14.13116
35. Seibert JA. Flat-panel detectors: how much better are they? Pediatric Radiology. 2006;36:173-81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-006-0208-0
36. Xu XG. Handbook of Anatomical Models for Radiation Dosimetry. Series in Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis; 2009.
https://doi.org/10.1201/EBK1420059793
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2012.05.017
2. Poca MA, Sahuquillo J. Short-term medical management of hydrocephalus. Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy. 2005;6(9):1525-38.
https://doi.org/10.1517/14656566.6.9.1525
3. Tiller C MS, Lundar T. Nevrokirurgisk shuntbehandling av barn med hydrocephalus. Tidsskrift Norske Legeforening. 2000(11); 120:1298-302
4. Lollis SS, Mamourian AC, Vaccaro TJ, Duhaime A-C. Programmable CSF Shunt Valves: Radiographic Identification and Interpretation. American Journal of Neuroradiology. 2010;31(7):1343-6. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A1997
5. Symss NPO, S. Is there an ideal shunt? A panoramic view of 110 years in CSF diversions and shunt systems used for the treatment of hydrocephalus: from historical events to current trends. Childs Nervous System. 2015;31(2):191-202.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-014-2608-z
6. Fernell E, von Wendt L, Serlo W, Heikkinen E, Andersson H. Ventriculoatrial or ventriculoperitoneal shunts in the treatment of hydrocephalus in children?
European Journal of Pediatric Surgery 1985; 40: 12-14
https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2008-1059758
7. Brean A, Fredo HL, Sollid S, Muller T, Sundstrom T, Eide PK. Five-year incidence of surgery for idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus in Norway. Acta Neurologica Scandinavia. 2009;120(5):314-6.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0404.2009.01250.x
8. CODMAN® HAKIM® Programmable Valve for Hydrocephalus. Procedure Guide. DePuy Synthes Institute©, DePuy Synthes Companies, 2011. Codman and Shurtleff Inc, 325 Paramont Drive, Raynham, MA 02767, USA. Cited 201605.09; http://bit.ly/2of7zHB
9. Fryback DG, Thornbury JR. The Efficacy of Diagnostic Imaging. Medical Decision Making. 1991;11(2):88-94. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X9101100203
10. Maller VV, Gray RI. Noncommunicating Hydrocephalus. Seminars in Ultrasound, CT and MRI. 2016;37(2):109-19. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sult.2015.12.004
11. Capitanio JF, Venier A, Mazzeo LA, Barzaghi LR, Acerno S, Mortini P. Prosepective Study to Evaluate Rate and Frequency of Perturbations of Implanted Programmable Hakim Codman Valve After 1.5-Tesla Magnetic Resonance Imaging. World Neurosurgery. 2016;88:297-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2015.09.082
12. Vyborny CJ. Image quality and the clinical radiographic examination. Radiographics. 1997;17(2):479-98. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiographics.17.2.9084085
13. Davey E, England A. AP versus PA positioning in lumbar spine computed radiography: Image quality and individual organ doses. Radiography. 2015;21(2):188-96.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2014.11.003
14. Artis zee Multi-purpose System Internet: Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc; 2016. Cited 2016.04.02. Available from: http://usa.healthcare.siemens.com/refurbished-systems-medical-imaging-and-therapy/angiography-ecoline/multi-purpose-angiography-ecoline/artis-zee-multi-purpose-system-eco
15. CODMAN® HAKIM® Programmable Valve for Hydrocephalus. Procedure Guide. DePuy Synthes Institute©, DePuy Synthes Companies, 2011. Codman and Shurtleff Inc, 325 Paramont Drive, Raynham, MA 02767, USA. Cited 201605.09; http://bit.ly/2of7zHB
16. Phantom Patient Internet: Supertech, Inc; 2016 [updated 2016; cited 2016 0123]. Available from: http://www.supertechx-ray.com/Anthropomorphic/FullBodyPhantoms/PhantomLabsPhantomPatient.php
17. Coated occipital adult head support pad Internet: ShureMed; 2016 [updated 2016; cited 2016 0123]. Available from: http://www.schuremed.com/Coated/Coated-Occipital-Adult-Head-Support-Pad/
18. DICOM Internet: NEMA; 2016 [updated 2016; cited 2016 0302]. Available from: http://dicom.nema.org/
19. Image processing and analysis in Java Internet: National Institutes of Health; 2016 [updated 20160503; cited 2016 0305]. Available from: https://imagej.nih.gov/ij/
20. Krupinski EA, Roehrig H, Dallas W, Fan J. Differential use of image enhancement techniques by experienced and inexperienced observers. J Digit Imaging. 2005;18(4):311-5.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-005-7666-z
21. SECTRA PACS: SECTRA AB; 2016 [updated 20160419; cited 2016 0502]. Available from: https://www.sectra.com/medical/diagnostic_imaging/solutions/ris-pacs/
22. Syngo.Via Internet: Siemens Healthcare GmbH; 2016 [updated 2016; cited 2016 0422]. Available from: http://www.healthcare.siemens.com/medical-imaging-it/syngovia/syngovia
23. Ludewig E, Richter A, Frame M. Diagnostic imaging--evaluating image quality using visual grading characteristic (VGC) analysis. Vet Res Commun. 2010;34(5):473-9.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11259-010-9413-2
24. Desai KR, Babb JS, Amodio JB. The utility of the plain radiograph "shunt series" in the evaluation of suspected ventriculoperitoneal shunt failure in pediatric patients. Pediatr Radiol. 2007;37(5):452-6.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-007-0431-3
25. McQuillen-Martensen K. Radiographic Critique. Pennsylvania: W.B. Saunders Company; 1996.
26. Bushong SC. Radiologic Science for Technologists: Physics, Biology, and Protection. 10th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier Mosby; 2013.
27. Bontrager KL, Lampignano J. Radiographic Positioning and Related Anatomy. 8th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier Mosby; 2013.
28. Koutalonis M, Delis H, Pascoal A, Spyrou G, Costaridou L, Panayiotakis G. Can electronic zoom replace magnification in mammography? A comparative Monte Carlo study. British Journal of Radiology. 2010;83(991):569-77. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/21753020
29. Kim MJ, Youk JH, Kang DR, Choi SH, Kwak JY, Son EJ, et al. Zooming method (x 2.0) of digital mammography vs digital magnification view (x 1.8) in full-field digital mammography for the diagnosis of microcalcifications. The British Journal of Radiology. 2010;83(990):486-92. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/16967819
30. Alkhalifah KH, Brindhaban A, Asbeutah AM. Comparison between image quality in electronic zoom and geometric magnification in digital mammography. Journal of X-ray Science and Technology. 2016;24(5):681-9. https://doi.org/10.3233/XST-160580
31. Gould RG, Hale J. Control of scattered radiation by air gap techniques: Applications to chest radiography. American Journal of Roentgenology. 1974;122(1):109-18.
https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.122.1.109
32. Gormez O, Yilmaz HH. Image Post-Processing in Dental Practice. European Journal of Dentistry. 2009;3(4):343-7.
33. Pooley RA, McKinney JM, Miller DA. The AAPM/RSNA Physics Tutorial for Residents. RadioGraphics. 2001;21(2):521-34. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiographics.21.2.g01mr20521
34. Huda W, Abrahams RB. Radiographic Techniques, Contrast, and Noise in X-Ray Imaging. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2015;204(2):W126-W31. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.14.13116
35. Seibert JA. Flat-panel detectors: how much better are they? Pediatric Radiology. 2006;36:173-81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-006-0208-0
36. Xu XG. Handbook of Anatomical Models for Radiation Dosimetry. Series in Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis; 2009.
https://doi.org/10.1201/EBK1420059793
Downloads
Published
2017-03-31
How to Cite
Bremnes, A., Kubosch, L. K., & Ween, B. (2017). Optimization of Codman® Hakim® adjustable valve radiography. Radiography Open, 3(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.7577/radopen.1998
Issue
Section
Articles
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication, with the work after publication simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
Cited by
