Adip G Bhargav1, Lorenzo Rinaldo2, Giuseppe Lanzino3, Benjamin D Elder4. 1. Mayo Clinic School of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA. 2. Department of Neurosurgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA. 3. Department of Neurosurgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA; Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA; Department of Bioengineering, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA; Department of Orthopedics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA. Electronic address: Elder.Benjamin@mayo.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ventricular shunts are most commonly placed via a frontal or parietal approach. However, there is a paucity of data comparing complication and revision rates associated with these approaches in the idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH) population. METHODS: Patients with iNPH treated with ventricular shunting between 2001 and 2017 at our institution were included for analysis. Patient characteristics, catheter accuracy, and incidence of revision were determined from the medical record. Catheter accuracy was determined using axial computed tomography imaging and classified as grade 1, 2, or 3 based on location of the catheter tip. RESULTS: There were 348 patients included for analysis with 266 (76.4%) and 82 (23.6%) receiving a frontal versus parietal shunt, respectively. Patients undergoing the parietal approach were more likely to receive a programmable valve (37.8% vs. 25.2%; P = 0.026). Neuronavigation was used more frequently for patients undergoing the parietal approach (26.8% vs. 4.1%; P < 0.001); however, a minority of cases used neuronavigation in general (9.5%). There was no difference in catheter accuracy between the 2 approaches and no difference in catheter accuracy with the use of neuronavigation. The overall revision rate was 21.0%, and there were no differences in the incidence of revisions between the frontal and parietal approaches (21.8% vs. 18.3%, respectively; P = 0.495). There were no differences in revision subtypes between the approaches. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the type of approach for shunting may not have a significant impact on complication and revision rates in patients with iNPH, and either approach is a reasonable first-line option.
BACKGROUND:Ventricular shunts are most commonly placed via a frontal or parietal approach. However, there is a paucity of data comparing complication and revision rates associated with these approaches in the idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH) population. METHODS:Patients with iNPH treated with ventricular shunting between 2001 and 2017 at our institution were included for analysis. Patient characteristics, catheter accuracy, and incidence of revision were determined from the medical record. Catheter accuracy was determined using axial computed tomography imaging and classified as grade 1, 2, or 3 based on location of the catheter tip. RESULTS: There were 348 patients included for analysis with 266 (76.4%) and 82 (23.6%) receiving a frontal versus parietal shunt, respectively. Patients undergoing the parietal approach were more likely to receive a programmable valve (37.8% vs. 25.2%; P = 0.026). Neuronavigation was used more frequently for patients undergoing the parietal approach (26.8% vs. 4.1%; P < 0.001); however, a minority of cases used neuronavigation in general (9.5%). There was no difference in catheter accuracy between the 2 approaches and no difference in catheter accuracy with the use of neuronavigation. The overall revision rate was 21.0%, and there were no differences in the incidence of revisions between the frontal and parietal approaches (21.8% vs. 18.3%, respectively; P = 0.495). There were no differences in revision subtypes between the approaches. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the type of approach for shunting may not have a significant impact on complication and revision rates in patients with iNPH, and either approach is a reasonable first-line option.