Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Article Preview
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Video Articles
    • AJNR Case Collection
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
  • Special Collections
    • AJNR Awards
    • ASNR Foundation Special Collection
    • Most Impactful AJNR Articles
    • Photon-Counting CT
    • Spinal CSF Leak Articles (Jan 2020-June 2024)
  • Multimedia
    • AJNR Podcasts
    • AJNR SCANtastic
    • Trainee Corner
    • MRI Safety Corner
    • Imaging Protocols
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Submit a Video Article
    • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
    • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
    • Statistical Tips
    • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
    • Graphical Abstract Preparation
    • Imaging Protocol Submission
    • Author Policies
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Board Alumni
  • More
    • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Advertisers
    • ASNR Home

User menu

  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Journal of Neuroradiology
American Journal of Neuroradiology

American Journal of Neuroradiology

ASHNR American Society of Functional Neuroradiology ASHNR American Society of Pediatric Neuroradiology ASSR
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Article Preview
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Video Articles
    • AJNR Case Collection
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
  • Special Collections
    • AJNR Awards
    • ASNR Foundation Special Collection
    • Most Impactful AJNR Articles
    • Photon-Counting CT
    • Spinal CSF Leak Articles (Jan 2020-June 2024)
  • Multimedia
    • AJNR Podcasts
    • AJNR SCANtastic
    • Trainee Corner
    • MRI Safety Corner
    • Imaging Protocols
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Submit a Video Article
    • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
    • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
    • Statistical Tips
    • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
    • Graphical Abstract Preparation
    • Imaging Protocol Submission
    • Author Policies
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Board Alumni
  • More
    • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Advertisers
    • ASNR Home
  • Follow AJNR on Twitter
  • Visit AJNR on Facebook
  • Follow AJNR on Instagram
  • Join AJNR on LinkedIn
  • RSS Feeds

AJNR is seeking candidates for the AJNR Podcast Editor. Read the position description.

EditorialEditorials

Radiation Risk Due to Shunted Hydrocephalus and the Role of MR Imaging–Safe Programmable Valves

S. Krishnamurthy, B. Schmidt and M.D. Tichenor
American Journal of Neuroradiology April 2013, 34 (4) 695-697; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A3334
S. Krishnamurthy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
B. Schmidt
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
M.D. Tichenor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • Responses
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Diagnostic radiology is a double-edged sword: While providing critical information that forms the basis of treatment, it adds to the risk associated with cumulative radiation given to the patient. Shunted hydrocephalus exemplifies this conundrum. Hydrocephalus is a common neurosurgical condition that affects individuals of all ages, and the most common method for managing hydrocephalus is the surgical implantation of a shunt system to divert the flow of CSF from the ventricles.1,2 More than 125,000 shunts are implanted every year in the United States at a cost of US $2 billion.3 Nearly half of this cost is associated with shunt revisions.4

Although most cases of hydrocephalus have clinical improvement with the insertion of a shunt, it is rare for the device to last a lifetime without complications.2 Shunts can be obstructed and infected, and tubing may get disrupted, resulting in recurrence of symptoms. In 1 study, the shunt failure rate in children was reported to be 31% within the first year and 4.5% per year thereafter; the failure rate in adults was found to be comparable with that in children.5 In another study, the overall shunt survival in pediatric patients was 62% at 1 year, 52% at 2 years, 46% at 3 years, and 41% at 4 years.6 In a third study, the probability of shunt malfunction after 12 years was 81%.7 The high incidence of device problems and the potential for serious consequences as a result, combined with patients who have cognitive problems expressing their symptoms, predicts frequent visits to emergency departments and urgent care centers.

The integrity of the tubing is checked by a series of x-rays of the head, chest, and abdomen; the size of the ventricles is assessed by CT of the head.8 CT is often the preferred technique because of its wide accessibility, ease of use, and brief imaging period. Initial scans focus on finding abnormal pathologies, while subsequent scans are oriented toward assessment of the shunt, determination of stability of ventricular volume, and identification of related complications. This need for confirming the suspicion of a shunt malfunction by diagnostic radiology increases the risk for long-term effects of ionizing radiation.9,10 The effective doses for x-rays are 0.1 (skull), 0.1 (chest), and 0.7 (abdomen) mSv, respectively; and for CT of the head, it is 2.0 mSv.11 In other words, a visit to the emergency department will result in nearly the same amount of radiation that any healthy individual gets from background radiation (estimated at 3 mSv) during a year.11 Despite this diligence in managing shunt problems, 2 of 3 patients who are investigated are not found to have shunt malfunction.12

Excessive exposure to radiation is of greater concern in children because rapidly dividing cells in children are more radiosensitive than those in adults.13,14 Additionally, a longer lifetime for children allows the manifestation of radiation injuries, which have a long latency period before they become apparent in patients.13 The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements estimated that during the past 2 decades the total exposure of the US population to ionizing radiation has nearly doubled.15 Studies have shown that patients most prone to harm from diagnostic radiation are children and young adults16; individuals with medical conditions sensitive to radiation, such as diabetes mellitus and hyperthyroidism17 (which are possible risk factors associated with normal pressure hydrocephalus)18; and individuals receiving multiple doses with time.19 From the 72 million CT scans performed in the United States during 2007, 1 study estimated that 29,000 future cancers and 14,500 deaths could result from radiation (assuming the cancer incidence to be 0.04%).20,21 The radiation doses that an organ receives from a typical CT study involving 2–3 scans are in the range of direct statistical significance for increased cancer risk.14 There are significant associations between the estimated radiation doses provided by CT scans to red bone marrow and brain and subsequent incidence of leukemia and brain tumors. Assuming typical doses for scans done after 2001 in children aged younger than 15 years, cumulative ionizing radiation doses from 2–3 head CTs could almost triple the risk of brain tumors and 5–10 head CTs could triple the risk of leukemia.22 In 2002, the International Commission on Radiologic Protection stated, “The absorbed dose to tissue from CT can often approach or exceed the levels known to increase the probability of cancer.”23 Although some studies may rely on unproven scientific assumptions or have not finished collecting data, they illustrate an important consideration for maintaining diagnostic radiation exposure at a minimum.

The use of MR images can reduce the amount of ionizing radiation exposure to patients with shunts, as opposed to the use of x-rays and CT scans. Reducing radiation delivered to patients could lessen the incidences of long-term effects of radiation, most notably cancer, because the risk of all solid cancers increases linearly with increasing radiation doses up to 2.5 Sv.14 Fast TSE T2 sequences are commonly used in rapid brain MR imaging.24⇓⇓⇓–28 Despite their utility, at least 2 limitations have been described. One is the lack of sensitivity in identification of extra-axial and parenchymal blood products that can result from overdrainage.29,30 The other is decreased catheter delineation compared with CT.28 Rapid steady state gradient recalled echo scanning has been advocated to eliminate the problems associated with rapid brain MR imaging by using fast TSE T2 sequences.31

A common concern with shunt function is the over- or underdrainage resulting from the mismatch of opening pressure of the valve to the needs of the patient.7 To address this issue of mismatch without the need for reoperation, programmable valves that allow clinicians to change the setting of the opening pressure were designed. These programmable valves are noninvasively adjusted through the application of a magnetic mechanism by using an external programmer. The first-generation designs involved confirmation of the setting of the valve by x-rays, leading to more radiation to the patient. However, when a patient is in close proximity to an external magnetic field, there is a possibility of an unintentional pressure setting alteration.32 As a result, individuals with such programmable valves need adjustment after they undergo MR imaging.

In addition, external magnetic fields found in devices such as video game systems, children's toys, cell phones, kitchen appliances, loud speakers, iPads (Apple, Cupertino, California), and so forth have been shown to cause valve malfunctions in shunts.33⇓⇓⇓⇓–38 This exposure not only contributes to the inability of the shunt device to work properly but leads to increased hospital visits and thus increased diagnostic scans from CT and x-rays. There have been specific instances of these cases: A boy playing with toy magnets altered the valve settings on his shunt,38 a man with a programmable shunt attempted suicide by using an electromagnet,39 an iPad 2 altered the setting on the valve of a 4-month-old girl,37 and the shunt setting of a 5-year-old boy was changed by a household electric appliance.40

Of the programmable valves used in shunts today, only a few are MR imaging–safe. The effect of external magnetic fields of 3T MR imaging scanners on 5 programmable shunts that are available for use in hydrocephalus was investigated. Of these, only Miethke ProGav (B Braun, Melsungen, Germany) and Polaris (Sophysa, Orsay, France) valves were not altered in the presence of an external magnetic field up to 3T. On the other hand, the Sophy (Sophysa) valve was altered between 18 and 27 mT; the Strata (Medtronic, Goleta, California) valve, between 22 and 36 mT; and the Codman Hakim (Codman & Shurtleff, Raynham, Massachusetts; regular and integrated with Siphon Guard; Codman & Shurtleff) valve, between 43 and 54 mT. The key feature that prevents inadvertent change in the setting of the valve is a locking mechanism that needs to be overcome when the setting is changed deliberately.36

These MR imaging safe–programmable valves avoid the need for radiation exposure after diagnostic MR imaging. Additionally, the problems resulting from external magnetic fields from commercial sources can be reduced, if not eliminated. The ability to observe CSF flow through shunt tubing is another advantage of using MR imaging for detection of proper functioning of the device.41,42 The pulsatile movement or flow of the CSF in the cerebral aqueduct has been illustrated by several groups by using the cerebral aqueductal flow void found on MR images. This technique sensitizes MR images to velocity changes in a specific direction and is helpful in quantifying CSF production when monitoring patients with hydrocephalus.43,44 Phase-contrast MR imaging can display the pathologic CSF flow dynamics noninvasively and allow assessment of the progression of the disorder.44

Although MR imaging–safe shunts are an improvement for the management of hydrocephalus, shunts are intricate devices and come with a list of complications. The integrity of the shunt still needs to be checked by using x-rays. MR imaging scanners are not available ubiquitously. Therefore, steps should be taken not only to minimize the risk for long-term complications of ionizing radiation but for designing alternative shunt-free treatment strategies that go beyond managing hydrocephalus and cure the disorder. Such alternatives to surgical treatment not only avoid the trauma of surgery but also eliminate the life-long exposure to excess radiation from an implanted shunt, especially in a neonate.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Mpakopoulou M,
    2. Brotis AG,
    3. Gatos H,
    4. et al
    . Ten years of clinical experience in the use of fixed-pressure versus programmable valves: a retrospective study of 159 patients. Acta Neurochir Suppl 2012;113:25–28
    CrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Griebel R,
    2. Khan M,
    3. Tan L
    . CSF shunt complications: an analysis of contributory factors. Childs Nerv Syst 1985;1:77–80
    CrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Bondurant CP,
    2. Jimenez DF
    . Epidemiology of cerebrospinal fluid shunting. Pediatr Neurosurg 2002;32:700–06
  4. 4.↵
    1. Patwardhan RV,
    2. Nanda A
    . Implanted ventricular shunts in the United States: the billion-dollar-a-year cost of hydrocephalus treatment. Neurosurgery 2005;56:139–44
    PubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Stein SC,
    2. Guo W
    . Have we made progress in preventing shunt failure? A critical analysis. J Neurosurg Pediatr 2008;1:40–47
    CrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Kestle J,
    2. Drake J,
    3. Milner R,
    4. et al
    . Long-term follow-up data from the shunt design trial. Pediatr Neurosurg 2000;33:230–36
    CrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Page SJ,
    2. Sisto SA,
    3. Levine P,
    4. et al
    . Modified constraint induced therapy: a randomized feasibility and efficacy study. J Rehabil Res Dev 2001;38:583–90
    PubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Pople IK
    . Hydrocephalus and shunts: what the neurologist should know. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2002;73(suppl 1);i17–22
    FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Rice HE,
    2. Frush DP,
    3. Farmer D,
    4. et al
    . Review of radiation risks from computed tomography: essentials for the pediatric surgeon. J PediatrSurg 2007;42:603–07
  10. 10.↵
    1. Hall EJ
    . Lessons we have learned from our children: cancer risks from diagnostic radiology. Pediatr Radiol 2002;32:700–06
    CrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Mettler FA,
    2. Huda W,
    3. Yoshizumi TT,
    4. et al
    . Effective doses in radiology and diagnostic nuclear medicine: a catalog. Radiology 2008;248:254–63
    CrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Garton HJ,
    2. Kestle JR,
    3. Drake JM
    . Predicting shunt failure on the basis of clinical symptoms and signs in children. J Neurosurg 2001;94:202–10
    CrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Strauss KJ,
    2. Goske MJ,
    3. Kaste SC,
    4. et al
    . Image gently: ten steps you can take to optimize image quality and lower CT dose for pediatric patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;194:868–73
    CrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Hall EJ,
    2. Brenner DJ
    . Cancer risks from diagnostic radiology. Br J Radiol 2008;81:362–78
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States (2009): NCRP Report No. 160. Bethesda, Maryland: NCRP; 142–46
  16. 16.↵
    1. Firestine K
    . CT dose reduction in pediatric patients. Radiol Manage 2011;33:40–44
    PubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Koenig TR,
    2. Wolff D,
    3. Mettler FA,
    4. et al
    . Skin injuries from fluoroscopically guided procedures. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;177:3–11
    CrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Krauss JK,
    2. Regel JP,
    3. Vach W,
    4. et al
    . Vascular risk factors and arteriosclerotic disease in idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus of the elderly. Stroke 1996;27:24–29
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    1. Holmberg O,
    2. Malone J,
    3. Rehani M,
    4. et al
    . Current issues and actions in radiation protection of patients. Eur J Radiol 2010;76:15–19
    CrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Berrington de González A,
    2. Mahesh M,
    3. Kim KP,
    4. et al
    . Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007. Arch Intern Med 2009;169:2071–77
    CrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Meer AB,
    2. Basu PA,
    3. Baker LC,
    4. et al
    . Atlas SW exposure to ionizing radiation and estimate of secondary cancers in the era of high-speed CT scanning: projections from the Medicare population. J Am Coll Radiol 2012;9:245–50
    CrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Pearce MS,
    2. Salotti JA,
    3. Little MP,
    4. et al
    . Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: a retrospective cohort study. The Lancet 2012;380:499–505
  23. 23.↵
    ICRP. Managing Patient Dose in Computed Tomography: ICRP Publication 87. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science; 2002
  24. 24.↵
    1. Engelbrecht V,
    2. Malms J,
    3. Kahn T,
    4. et al
    . Fast spin-echo MR imaging of the pediatric brain. Pediatr Radiol 1996;26:259–64
    CrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Penzkofer AK,
    2. Pfluger T,
    3. Pochmann Y,
    4. et al
    . MR imaging of the brain in pediatric patients: diagnostic value of HASTE sequences. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179:509–14
    PubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Forbes KP,
    2. Pipe JG,
    3. Karis JP,
    4. et al
    . Brain imaging in the unsedated patient: comparison of periodically rotated overlapping parallel lines with enhanced reconstruction and single-shot fast spin-echo sequences. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2003;24:794–98
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  27. 27.↵
    1. Ashley WW Jr.,
    2. McKinstry RC,
    3. Leonard JR,
    4. et al
    . Use of rapid-sequence magnetic resonance imaging for the evaluation of hydrocephalus in children. J Neurosurg 2005;103(2 suppl):124–30
    CrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Iskandar BJ,
    2. Sansone JM,
    3. Medow J,
    4. et al
    . The use of quick-brain magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of shunt-treated hydrocephalus. J Neurosurg 2004;101(2 suppl):147–51
    PubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Liang L,
    2. Korogi Y,
    3. Sugahara T,
    4. et al
    . Detection of intracranial hemorrhage with susceptibility-weighted MR sequences. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1999;20:1527–34
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  30. 30.↵
    1. Jones KM,
    2. Mulkern RV,
    3. Mantello MT
    . Brain hemorrhage: evaluation with fast spin-echo and conventional dual spin-echo images. Radiology 1992;182:53–58
    PubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Miller JH,
    2. Walkiewicz T,
    3. Towbin RB,
    4. et al
    . Improved delineation of ventricular shunt catheters using fast steady-state gradient recalled-echo sequences in a rapid brain MR imaging protocol in nonsedated pediatric patients. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2010;31:430–35
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  32. 32.↵
    1. Shellock FG,
    2. Wilson SF,
    3. Mauge CP
    . Magnetically programmable shunt valve: MRI at 3-Tesla. Magn Reson Imaging 2007;25:1116–21
    CrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Nakashima K,
    2. Nakajo T,
    3. Kawamo M,
    4. et al
    . Programmable shunt valves: in vitro assessment of safety of the magnetic field generated by a portable game machine. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 2011;51:635–38
    CrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Nomura S,
    2. Fujisawa H,
    3. Suzuki M
    . Effect of cell phone magnetic fields on adjustable cerebrospinal fluid shunt valves. Surg Neurol 2005;63:467–68
    CrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    1. Schneider T,
    2. Knauff U,
    3. Nitsch J,
    4. et al
    . Electromagnetic field hazards involving adjustable shunt valves in hydrocephalus. J Neurosurg 2002;96:331–34
    CrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. Lavinio A,
    2. Harding S,
    3. Boogaard FV,
    4. et al
    . Magnetic field interactions in adjustable hydrocephalus shunts. J Neurosurg Pediatr 2008;2:222–28
    CrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Strahle J,
    2. Selzer BJ,
    3. Muraszko KM,
    4. et al
    . Programmable shunt valve affected by exposure to a tablet computer. J Neurosurg Pediatr 2012;10:118–20
    CrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    1. Anderson RC,
    2. Walker ML,
    3. Viner JM,
    4. et al
    . Adjustment and malfunction of a programmable valve after exposure to toy magnets: case report. J Neurosurg 2004;101(2 suppl):222–25
    PubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Turner SG,
    2. Hall WA
    . Programmable shunt-related suicide attempt. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2006;148:1307–10, discussion 1310
    CrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    1. Kataria R,
    2. Kumar V,
    3. Mehta VS
    . Programmable valve shunts: are they really better? Turk Neurosurg 2012;22:237–38
    PubMed
  41. 41.↵
    1. Lavinio A,
    2. Harding S,
    3. Boogaard FVD,
    4. et al
    . Magnetic field interactions in adjustable hydrocephalus shunts. J Neurosurg Pediatrics 2008;2:222–28
    CrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    1. Frank E,
    2. Buonocore M,
    3. Hein L
    . Magnetic resonance imaging analysis of extremely slow flow in a shunt model system. Childs Nerv Syst 1992;8:73–75
    CrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    1. Gideon P,
    2. Stahlberg F,
    3. Thomsen C,
    4. et al
    . Cerebral fluid flow and production in patients with normal pressure hydrocephalus studied by MRI. Neuroradiology 1994;36:210–15
    CrossRefPubMed
  44. 44.↵
    1. Lee JH,
    2. Lee HK,
    3. Kim JK,
    4. et al
    . CSF flow quantification of the cerebral aqueduct in normal volunteers using phase contrast cine MR imaging. Korean J Radiol 2004;5:81–86
    PubMed
  • © 2013 by American Journal of Neuroradiology
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

American Journal of Neuroradiology: 34 (4)
American Journal of Neuroradiology
Vol. 34, Issue 4
1 Apr 2013
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Advertisement
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Journal of Neuroradiology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Radiation Risk Due to Shunted Hydrocephalus and the Role of MR Imaging–Safe Programmable Valves
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Journal of Neuroradiology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Journal of Neuroradiology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Cite this article
S. Krishnamurthy, B. Schmidt, M.D. Tichenor
Radiation Risk Due to Shunted Hydrocephalus and the Role of MR Imaging–Safe Programmable Valves
American Journal of Neuroradiology Apr 2013, 34 (4) 695-697; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A3334

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
0 Responses
Respond to this article
Share
Bookmark this article
Radiation Risk Due to Shunted Hydrocephalus and the Role of MR Imaging–Safe Programmable Valves
S. Krishnamurthy, B. Schmidt, M.D. Tichenor
American Journal of Neuroradiology Apr 2013, 34 (4) 695-697; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A3334
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Purchase

Jump to section

  • Article
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • Responses
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Epidermal electronics for noninvasive, wireless, quantitative assessment of ventricular shunt function in patients with hydrocephalus
  • Crossref (7)
  • Google Scholar

This article has been cited by the following articles in journals that are participating in Crossref Cited-by Linking.

  • Epidermal electronics for noninvasive, wireless, quantitative assessment of ventricular shunt function in patients with hydrocephalus
    Siddharth R. Krishnan, Tyler R. Ray, Amit B. Ayer, Yinji Ma, Philipp Gutruf, KunHyuck Lee, Jong Yoon Lee, Chen Wei, Xue Feng, Barry Ng, Zachary A. Abecassis, Nikhil Murthy, Izabela Stankiewicz, Juliet Freudman, Julia Stillman, Natalie Kim, Grace Young, Camille Goudeseune, John Ciraldo, Matthew Tate, Yonggang Huang, Matthew Potts, John A. Rogers
    Science Translational Medicine 2018 10 465
  • Age- and gender-specific estimates of cumulative CT dose over 5 years using real radiation dose tracking data in children
    Eunsol Lee, Hyun Woo Goo, Jae-Yeong Lee
    Pediatric Radiology 2015 45 9
  • Neuroimaging of Children With Surgically Treated Hydrocephalus: A Practical Approach
    Caroline D. Robson, Robert D. MacDougall, Joseph R. Madsen, Benjamin C. Warf, Richard L. Robertson
    American Journal of Roentgenology 2017 208 2
  • Noninvasive measurement of cerebrospinal fluid flow using an ultrasonic transit time flow sensor: a preliminary study
    Thomas Pennell, Juneyoung L. Yi, Bruce A. Kaufman, Satish Krishnamurthy
    Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics 2016 17 3
  • Smartphone Based Medical Diagnostics
    Alex Burton, Tucker Stuart, Jokubas Ausra, Philipp Gutruf
    2020
  • Mild traumatic brain injury in children with ventricular shunts: a PREDICT study
    Franz E. Babl, Mark D. Lyttle, Natalie Phillips, Amit Kochar, Sarah Dalton, John A. Cheek, Jeremy Furyk, Jocelyn Neutze, Silvia Bressan, Amanda Williams, Stephen J. C. Hearps, MBiostat, Ed Oakley, Gavin A. Davis, Stuart R. Dalziel, Meredith L. Borland
    Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics 2021 27 2
  • The Evolution of Ventriculoperitoneal Shunt Valves and Why They Fail
    Brianna N. Stehlik, Bryan C. Good, Stephanie C. TerMaath
    World Neurosurgery 2025 194

More in this TOC Section

  • Comeback Victory
  • Teaching Lessons by MR CLEAN
  • Coffee Houses and Reading Rooms
Show more EDITORIALS

Similar Articles

Advertisement

Indexed Content

  • Current Issue
  • Accepted Manuscripts
  • Article Preview
  • Past Issues
  • Editorials
  • Editor's Choice
  • Fellows' Journal Club
  • Letters to the Editor
  • Video Articles

Cases

  • Case Collection
  • Archive - Case of the Week
  • Archive - Case of the Month
  • Archive - Classic Case

Special Collections

  • AJNR Awards
  • ASNR Foundation Special Collection
  • Most Impactful AJNR Articles
  • Photon-Counting CT
  • Spinal CSF Leak Articles (Jan 2020-June 2024)

More from AJNR

  • Trainee Corner
  • Imaging Protocols
  • MRI Safety Corner

Multimedia

  • AJNR Podcasts
  • AJNR Scantastics

Resources

  • Turnaround Time
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Submit a Video Article
  • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
  • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
  • Statistical Tips
  • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
  • Graphical Abstract Preparation
  • Imaging Protocol Submission
  • Evidence-Based Medicine Level Guide
  • Publishing Checklists
  • Author Policies
  • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
  • News and Updates

About Us

  • About AJNR
  • Editorial Board
  • Editorial Board Alumni
  • Alerts
  • Permissions
  • Not an AJNR Subscriber? Join Now
  • Advertise with Us
  • Librarian Resources
  • Feedback
  • Terms and Conditions
  • AJNR Editorial Board Alumni

American Society of Neuroradiology

  • Not an ASNR Member? Join Now

© 2025 by the American Society of Neuroradiology All rights, including for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies, are reserved.
Print ISSN: 0195-6108 Online ISSN: 1936-959X

Powered by HighWire