These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
92 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12168301)
1. Dynamic shunt testing applying short lasting pressure waves--inertia of shunt systems. Schuhmann MU; Schneekloth CG; Klinge P; Engel M; Samii M; Brinker T Acta Neurochir Suppl; 2002; 81():19-21. PubMed ID: 12168301 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Application of clinically recorded ICP patterns--an extension of conventional shunt testing. Schuhmann MU; Engel M; Runge L; Samii M; Brinker T Childs Nerv Syst; 2000 Dec; 16(12):856-61. PubMed ID: 11156301 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. A physical framework for implementing virtual models of intracranial pressure and cerebrospinal fluid dynamics in hydrocephalus shunt testing. Venkataraman P; Browd SR; Lutz BR J Neurosurg Pediatr; 2016 Sep; 18(3):296-305. PubMed ID: 27203135 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Addressing the siphoning effect in new shunt designs by decoupling the activation pressure and the pressure gradient across the valve. Mattei TA; Morris M; Nowak K; Smith D; Yee J; Goulart CR; Zborowski A; Lin JJ J Neurosurg Pediatr; 2013 Feb; 11(2):181-7. PubMed ID: 23215676 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Laboratory testing of hydrocephalus shunts -- conclusion of the U.K. Shunt evaluation programme. Czosnyka Z; Czosnyka M; Richards HK; Pickard JD Acta Neurochir (Wien); 2002 Jun; 144(6):525-38; discussion 538. PubMed ID: 12111485 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Shunt testing in-vivo: a method based on the data from the UK shunt evaluation laboratory. Czosnyka ZH; Czosnyka M; Pickard JD Acta Neurochir Suppl; 2002; 81():27-30. PubMed ID: 12168323 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Cerebrospinal fluid hydrodynamics after placement of a shunt with an antisiphon device: a long-term study. Lundkvist B; Eklund A; Kristensen B; Fagerlund M; Koskinen LO; Malm J J Neurosurg; 2001 May; 94(5):750-6. PubMed ID: 11354406 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Overdrainage and shunt technology. A critical comparison of programmable, hydrostatic and variable-resistance valves and flow-reducing devices. Aschoff A; Kremer P; Benesch C; Fruh K; Klank A; Kunze S Childs Nerv Syst; 1995 Apr; 11(4):193-202. PubMed ID: 7621479 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Hydrocephalus shunts and waves of intracranial pressure. Czosnyka ZH; Cieslicki K; Czosnyka M; Pickard JD Med Biol Eng Comput; 2005 Jan; 43(1):71-7. PubMed ID: 15742722 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Simulation of existing and future electromechanical shunt valves in combination with a model for brain fluid dynamics. Elixmann IM; Walter M; Kiefer M; Leonhardt S Acta Neurochir Suppl; 2012; 113():77-81. PubMed ID: 22116428 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. [Computer-assisted test ring for cerebrospinal fluid drainage systems]. Leonhardt S; Bluhm V; Steudel WI Biomed Tech (Berl); 1994; 39(7-8):188-95. PubMed ID: 7948662 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The gravitational shunt: an alternative approach to cerebrospinal fluid shunting. Sampson JH; Cardoso ER Surg Neurol; 1993 Aug; 40(2):112-8. PubMed ID: 8362347 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Who Needs a Revision? 20 Years of Cambridge Shunt Lab. Czosnyka Z; Czosnyka M; Pickard JD; Chari A Acta Neurochir Suppl; 2016; 122():347-51. PubMed ID: 27165934 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]