Evaluates biomaterial performance in ventricular catheters, suggesting improved design for hydrocephalus management.
Background: Ventricular catheter (VC) obstruction remains one of the most common causes of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) shunt failure in hydrocephalus patients. Material properties of VCs are hypothesized to contribute to failure, yet few studies have systematically compared alternative biomaterials using a consistent VC design and manufacturing process. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of producing VCs from a range of commercially available elastomeric biomaterials using a rapid prototyping process and subjecting VCs to testing aimed at validating mechanical and surface properties relative to a commercial VC. Methods: A lost-wax casting technique was employed to fabricate VCs from five biomaterials: three silicones of select hardness ratings, polyisoprene, and polyurethane. Biomaterial performance was assessed via standardized tests, including tear strength, contact angle, fluid resistance, protein adsorption, and surface morphology. A benchtop system improved with oscillatory flow was used to assess protein adsorption. Results: All fabricated VCs were comparable to the commercial VC. Polyisoprene demonstrated the highest tear strength, while polyurethane exhibited the smoothest surface. Despite assessing VCs for different hardness, surface texture, and surface energy, there was no significant difference in protein adsorbed. Conclusion: This work represents an effort that combines rapid lab-based manufacturing, VC material testing, and VC biological testing under clinically relevant flow direction and volume. In this way, this work offers new insight into new VC materials, a shift in prototype and testing protocols for VCs used in hydrocephalus, and suggests the need for environmental control and exposure in future testing to improve shunt longevity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tappen et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: