Technology Rate of Infection Rate of Hemorrhage Technical Errors Comparison of parenchymal & ventricular ICP recordings Zero Drift Camino ICP Monitor Fiber optic 8.5%174.75%23 2.50% (0.66% clinical significant)17 1.1%23` 4.5%17 10%18 3.14%23 0.946* (180 paired data points)19 59.3% within ±2 mm Hg and 97% within ±5 mmHg20 Mean 7.3 ± 5.1 mmHg (range −17 to 21 mmHg)17 Mean −0.67 mmHg (range −13 to 22 mmHg)18 Mean 0.4 ± 0.57 mmHg (maximum 12 mmHg)30 Codman MicroSensor Strain gauge 0%44 0%24 0%23 ∼0.3% (0% clinical significant)24 n/a Mean difference 0.7mm Hg24 Mean difference 0.3mmHg (range -6.7 to 7.1mmHg) (1,527 paired data points)26 Mean 0.9 ± 0.2 mmHg (range −5 to 4 mmHg)24 Mean 0.1 ± 1.6 mmHg/100 hours of monitoring26 Mean 2.0 mmHg (range −6 to 15 mmHg)25 RaumedicNeurovent-P ICP sensor Strain gauge 0%29 2.02% (0% clinical significant)29 1%30 5%30 n/a Mean 0.8 ± 2.2 mmHg (range −4 to +8 mmHg)29 Mean 0.2 ± 0.41 mmHg (maximum 3mmHg)30 Pressio Strain gauge n/a n/a n/a Mean difference -0.6mmHg (range -8.1 to 6.9mmHg) (1,562 paired data points)26 Mean −0.7 ± 1.6 mmHg/100 hours of monitoring26 Spiegelberg Pneumatic 0%31 0%31 3.45%31 99.6% within +/13mmHg and 91.3% within +/12mmHg (15104 paired data points)31 Mean<±2mmHg31 Hummingbird Synergy Duo Pneumatic 4%32 10%32 n/a 95% within +/-12mmHg (1.5million paired data points)33

Table reproduced with modifications from Raboel et al, Table 2: Comparison of microtransucer ICP monitoring devices *Correlation coefficient of parenchymal ICP values to ventricular ICP values

Table 1: Comparison of Parenchymal ICP monitoring devices.