4.1 Article

Measurement of cerebrospinal fluid formation and absorption by ventriculo-cisternal perfusion: what is really measured?

Journal

CROATIAN MEDICAL JOURNAL
Volume 55, Issue 4, Pages 317-327

Publisher

MEDICINSKA NAKLADA
DOI: 10.3325/cmj.2014.55.317

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Ministry of Science, Education and Sport of the Republic of Croatia [098-1080231-2328, 108 1080231 0023]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The generally accepted hypothesis on cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) hydrodynamics suggests that CSF is actively formed mainly by the choroid plexuses, circulates unidirectionally along the brain ventricles and subarachnoid space, and is passively absorbed mainly into the dural venous sinuses. CSF formation rate (V-f) has been extensively studied using the ventriculo-cisternal perfusion technique and the results have been used as the key evidence confirming the mentioned hypothesis. This technique and the equation for V-f calculation are based on the assumption that the dilution of the indicator substance is a consequence of the newly formed CSF, ie, that a higher CSF formation rate will result in a higher degree of dilution. However, it has been experimentally shown that the indicator substance dilution inside the CSF system does not occur because of a newly formed CSF, but as consequence of a number of other factors (departure of substances into the surrounding tissue, flowing around the collecting cannula into the cortical and spinal subarachnoid space, departure into the contralateral ventricle, etc). This technique allows calculation of the CSF formation even in dead animals, in an in vitro model, and in any other part of the CSF system outside the ventricles that is being perfused. Therefore, this method is indirect and any dilution of the indicator substance in the perfusate caused by other reasons would result in questionable and often contradictory conclusions regarding CSF formation rates.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available