Literature DB >> 32476100

Endoscopic third ventriculostomy versus ventriculoperitoneal shunt in pediatric and adult population: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Apurva Pande1, Nayan Lamba2, Marco Mammi2,3, Paulos Gebrehiwet1, Alyssa Trenary1, Joanne Doucette1, Stefania Papatheodorou4, Adomas Bunevicius2, Timothy R Smith2, Rania A Mekary5,6.   

Abstract

Treatment options for hydrocephalus include endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV) and ventriculoperitoneal shunt (VPS). Some ambiguity remains regarding indications, safety, and efficacy for these procedures in different clinical scenarios. The objective of the present study was to pool the available evidence to compare outcomes among patients with hydrocephalus undergoing ETV versus VPS. A systematic search of the literature was conducted via PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library through 11/29/2018 to identify studies evaluating failure and complication rates, following ETV or VPS. Pooled effect estimates were calculated using random effects. Heterogeneity was assessed by the Cochrane Q test and the I2 value. Heterogeneity sources were explored through subgroup analyses and meta-regression. Twenty-three studies (five randomized control trials (RCTs) and 18 observational studies) were meta-analyzed. Comparing ETV to VPS, failure rate was not statistically significantly different with a pooled relative risk (RR) of 1.48, 95%CI (0.85, 2.59) for RCTs and 1.17 (0.89, 1.53) for cohort studies; P-interaction: 0.44. Complication rates were not statistically significantly different between ETV and VPS in RCTs (RR: 1.34, 95%CI: 0.50, 3.59) but were statistically significant for prospective cohort studies (RR: 0.47, 95%CI: 0.30, 0.78); P-interaction: 0.07. Length of hospital stay was no different, when comparing ETV and VPS. These results remained unchanged when stratifying by intervention type and when regressing on age when possible. No significant differences in failure rate were observed between ETV and VPS. ETV was found to have lower complication rates than VPS in prospective cohort studies but not in RCTs. Further research is needed to identify the specific patient populations who may be better suited for one intervention versus another.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV); Hydrocephalus; Meta-analysis; Shunt; Systematic review

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32476100     DOI: 10.1007/s10143-020-01320-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurosurg Rev        ISSN: 0344-5607            Impact factor:   3.042


  34 in total

Review 1.  Endoscopic Third Ventriculostomy versus Ventriculoperitoneal Shunt in Patients with Obstructive Hydrocephalus: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Authors:  Liang Lu; Hongwu Chen; Shaotao Weng; Yimin Xu
Journal:  World Neurosurg       Date:  2019-05-25       Impact factor: 2.104

2.  Surgical management of non-communicating hydrocephalus in patients: meta-analysis and comparison of endoscopic third ventriculostomy and ventriculoperitoneal shunt.

Authors:  HongWei Cheng; WenMing Hong; ZhaoJun Mei; XiaoJie Wang
Journal:  J Craniofac Surg       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 1.046

3.  Diagnosis, treatment, and long-term outcomes of fetal hydrocephalus.

Authors:  Mami Yamasaki; Masahiro Nonaka; Yohei Bamba; Chika Teramoto; Chiaki Ban; Ritsuko K Pooh
Journal:  Semin Fetal Neonatal Med       Date:  2012-10-23       Impact factor: 3.926

Review 4.  Three steps forward and 2 steps back: the Echternach procession toward optimal hydrocephalus treatment.

Authors:  Benjamin C Warf
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 4.654

Review 5.  Endoscopic third ventriculostomy versus shunt for pediatric hydrocephalus: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Pavlos Texakalidis; Muhibullah S Tora; Jeremy S Wetzel; Joshua J Chern
Journal:  Childs Nerv Syst       Date:  2019-05-25       Impact factor: 1.475

Review 6.  The durability of endoscopic third ventriculostomy and ventriculoperitoneal shunts in children with hydrocephalus following posterior fossa tumor resection: a systematic review and time-to-failure analysis.

Authors:  Michael C Dewan; Jaims Lim; Chevis N Shannon; John C Wellons
Journal:  J Neurosurg Pediatr       Date:  2017-03-10       Impact factor: 2.375

7.  Cerebrospinal Fluid and Hydrocephalus: Physiology, Diagnosis, and Treatment.

Authors:  Andreas K Filis; Kamran Aghayev; Frank D Vrionis
Journal:  Cancer Control       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 3.302

Review 8.  Is endoscopic third ventriculostomy superior to shunts in patients with non-communicating hydrocephalus? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence.

Authors:  F T Rasul; H J Marcus; A K Toma; L Thorne; L D Watkins
Journal:  Acta Neurochir (Wien)       Date:  2013-03-03       Impact factor: 2.216

Review 9.  Hydrocephalus in children.

Authors:  Kristopher T Kahle; Abhaya V Kulkarni; David D Limbrick; Benjamin C Warf
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2015-08-06       Impact factor: 79.321

10.  Endoscopic third ventriculostomy in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: an Italian multicenter study.

Authors:  Michelangelo Gangemi; Francesco Maiuri; Michele Naddeo; Umberto Godano; Carmelo Mascari; Giovanni Broggi; Paolo Ferroli
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 4.654

View more
  3 in total

1.  Costs of pediatric hydrocephalus treatment for the Brazilian public health system in the Northeast of Brazil.

Authors:  Luan Guanais Soriano; José Roberto Tude Melo
Journal:  Childs Nerv Syst       Date:  2022-08-10       Impact factor: 1.532

2.  Ventriculoperitoneal Shunt Failure Due to Distal Peritoneal Catheter Kinking.

Authors:  Hussam Abou-Al-Shaar; Arka N Mallela; Hanna N Algattas; Rachel Rogers; Robert M Friedlander
Journal:  Am J Case Rep       Date:  2022-04-05

3.  Long-standing overt ventriculomegaly in adulthood with primary presentation of psychiatric disturbance: A case report.

Authors:  Gao-Jian Su; Jie Gao; Chu-Wei Wu; Jun-Feng Zou; Dong-Liang Zhu; Jun Liu; Jie-Hua Zhang; Xian-Jian Huang
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2021-12-10       Impact factor: 1.817

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.