Abdul Rahman Al-Schameri1, Jasmina Hamed2, Gerasimos Baltsavias3, Peter Winkler4, Lukas Machegger4, Bernd Richling5, Stephan Emich4. 1. Neurosurgical Department, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria. Electronic address: a.al-schameri@salk.at. 2. Neurological Department, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 3. University Hospital, Neuroradiology Department, Zurich, Switzerland. 4. Neurosurgical Department, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria. 5. Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In recent years, the number of ventriculoatrial (VA) shunt insertions has decreased worldwide, the major cause being the risk of shunt infection. VA shunts remain as an alternative option to ventriculoperitoneal shunts. We describe our 10-year experience with VA shunts by analyzing the incidence of shunt infections and predisposing cofactors. METHODS: During a median follow-up of 15.3 months, 259 shunt insertions, performed on 255 patients, were analyzed. The infection rate was calculated and the predisposing cofactors age, gender, cause of the hydrocephalus, previous external ventricle drainage, antibiotic-impregnated catheters, the number of revisions, the educational level of the surgeons, and the duration of the operations were analyzed. Two observation times were stratified. RESULTS: We found overall infections in 18 patients (7.1%), 16 deep infections (6.3%) including 1 shunt nephritis (0.4%) and 2 superficial infections (0.8%). Wound dehiscence occurred in 17 patients (6. 6%). Analyzing follow-up time, the infection rate was 3.65% (95% confidence interval, 0.9%-5.9%) at survival time 1, 3.38% (95% confidence interval, 1.1%-6.2%) at survival time 2. In the first 6 months, 95% of patients were free of infection. Only the number of revision procedures was associated with the number of infections (P value < 0.0005). CONCLUSIONS: In our patient cohort, the infection rate related to VA shunt insertion is low; the only statistically significant risk factor was the number of revisions. If the VA shunt is applied following a standardized protocol, the infection risk does not represent an argument for reluctance towards the VA draining concept.
BACKGROUND: In recent years, the number of ventriculoatrial (VA) shunt insertions has decreased worldwide, the major cause being the risk of shunt infection. VA shunts remain as an alternative option to ventriculoperitoneal shunts. We describe our 10-year experience with VA shunts by analyzing the incidence of shunt infections and predisposing cofactors. METHODS: During a median follow-up of 15.3 months, 259 shunt insertions, performed on 255 patients, were analyzed. The infection rate was calculated and the predisposing cofactors age, gender, cause of the hydrocephalus, previous external ventricle drainage, antibiotic-impregnated catheters, the number of revisions, the educational level of the surgeons, and the duration of the operations were analyzed. Two observation times were stratified. RESULTS: We found overall infections in 18 patients (7.1%), 16 deep infections (6.3%) including 1 shunt nephritis (0.4%) and 2 superficial infections (0.8%). Wound dehiscence occurred in 17 patients (6. 6%). Analyzing follow-up time, the infection rate was 3.65% (95% confidence interval, 0.9%-5.9%) at survival time 1, 3.38% (95% confidence interval, 1.1%-6.2%) at survival time 2. In the first 6 months, 95% of patients were free of infection. Only the number of revision procedures was associated with the number of infections (P value < 0.0005). CONCLUSIONS: In our patient cohort, the infection rate related to VA shunt insertion is low; the only statistically significant risk factor was the number of revisions. If the VA shunt is applied following a standardized protocol, the infection risk does not represent an argument for reluctance towards the VA draining concept.
Authors: Andrés Segura-Hernández; Fernando Hakim; Juan F Ramón; Enrique Jiménez-Hakim; Juan A Mejía-Cordovez; Diego Quintero-Rueda; Yessid Araque-Puello; Camila Pedraza-Ciro; Juan P Leal-Isaza; Juliana Mendoza-Mantilla; Vanesa Robles; Martina Gonzalez; Daniel Jaramillo-Velásquez; Diego F Gómez Journal: Surg Neurol Int Date: 2021-10-19