This paper describes considerations in choosing between different telemetric ICP monitoring systems.
BackgroundThe clinical advantage of telemetric intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring has previously been limited by issues with inaccuracy and zero-drift. Today, two 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.
MethodsThe two 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.
ResultsBoth 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-approval (3 years) but cannot be used for long-duration monitoring sessions. In comparison, the Raumedic implant has a lower sampling frequency (5 Hz), 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 15,790 €.
ConclusionThe Miethke system is useful in out-patient 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 two systems, it must primarily be decided if the clinical situation requires long-duration monitoring sessions or continuous repeated ambulatory follow-up sessions.
Read the full paper in World Neurosurg (click here).