This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (10)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

J. Douglas Miller, MD, PhD, FRCSE, FRCSG, FACS, FRCPE

Arch Neurol. 1985;42(12):1191-1193.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

Since its introduction into clinical neurosurgical practice 25 years ago,¹ continuous monitoring of intracranial pressure (ICP) has remained an area of controversy. Its proponents claim that the technique is an integral part of neurologic intensive care and should play a part in the management of every comatose patient, while opponents hold that there is no evidence that implementation of ICP monitoring influences outcome to an extent that justifies the risks of this invasive procedure.

THE METHODS

The method of ICP monitoring described by Lundberg¹ involved catheterization of the frontal horn of the lateral ventricle with fluid connection to an externally placed transducer. This provided an accurate measure of intraventricular pressure, the zero point and calibration could be checked, and the technique remains the standard against which all other methods must be judged. The problems with the technique are that the brain must be punctured, opening the possibilities . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
From the Department of Surgical Neurology, University of Edinburgh.

Footnotes
Accepted for publication May 10, 1985.

Reprints not available.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?