Masahiro Nonaka1, Yumiko Komori2, Haruna Isozaki2, Katsuya Ueno2, Takamasa Kamei2, Junichi Takeda2, Yuichiro Nonaka3, Ichiro Yabe4, Masayoshi Zaitsu5, Kenji Nakashima6, Akio Asai2. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, Kansai Medical University, 2-5-1 Shinmachi, Hirakata, Osaka, 573-1010, Japan. nonakamasa65@gmail.com. 2. Department of Neurosurgery, Kansai Medical University, 2-5-1 Shinmachi, Hirakata, Osaka, 573-1010, Japan. 3. Department of Neurosurgery, Jikei Medical University, Minato-Ku, Tokyo, Japan. 4. Department of Neurology, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan. 5. Center for Research of the Aging Workforce, University of Occupational and Environmental Health Japan, Kitakyushu, Japan. 6. National Hospital Organization, Matsue Medical Center, Matsue, Shimane, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the real-world status of neurosurgical treatment of myelomeningocele patients. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the real-world status of neurosurgical treatment of myelomeningocele patients, medical claims data provided by the Japan Medical Data Center (JMDC) were analyzed. METHODS: The health claims data of 556 patients with myelomeningoceles from January 2005 to March 2020 were examined. The number of neurosurgical procedures, including myelomeningocele repair, tethered cord release, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) shunt, CSF drainage, and endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV), was determined. RESULTS: A total of 313 neurosurgical procedures were performed for 135 patients in 74 institutions during the study period. The shunt survival rate was most affected by shunts that were revised when the patient was less than 1 year old, which had a significantly lower survival rate than all of the initial shunts performed when the patient was less than on1 year old; the 1-year shunt survival rate was 35 vs 64% (P = 0.0102). The survival rate was significantly lower in patients younger than 1 year who had CSF drainage before shunting compared to those younger than 1 year who did not have CSF drainage before shunting; the 1-year shunt survival rate was 27 vs 59% (P = 0.0196), and 81% of patients remained free of tethered cord release 10 years later. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, a revised shunt of less than 1 year of age and CSF drainage before shunting were the factors that lowered the shunt survival rate in the real world for CSF shunts for hydrocephalus associated with myelomeningocele.
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the real-world status of neurosurgical treatment of myelomeningocele patients. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the real-world status of neurosurgical treatment of myelomeningocele patients, medical claims data provided by the Japan Medical Data Center (JMDC) were analyzed. METHODS: The health claims data of 556 patients with myelomeningoceles from January 2005 to March 2020 were examined. The number of neurosurgical procedures, including myelomeningocele repair, tethered cord release, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) shunt, CSF drainage, and endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV), was determined. RESULTS: A total of 313 neurosurgical procedures were performed for 135 patients in 74 institutions during the study period. The shunt survival rate was most affected by shunts that were revised when the patient was less than 1 year old, which had a significantly lower survival rate than all of the initial shunts performed when the patient was less than on1 year old; the 1-year shunt survival rate was 35 vs 64% (P = 0.0102). The survival rate was significantly lower in patients younger than 1 year who had CSF drainage before shunting compared to those younger than 1 year who did not have CSF drainage before shunting; the 1-year shunt survival rate was 27 vs 59% (P = 0.0196), and 81% of patients remained free of tethered cord release 10 years later. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, a revised shunt of less than 1 year of age and CSF drainage before shunting were the factors that lowered the shunt survival rate in the real world for CSF shunts for hydrocephalus associated with myelomeningocele.
Authors: Jochem K H Spoor; Pravesh S Gadjradj; Alex J Eggink; Philip L J DeKoninck; Bart Lutters; Jeroen R Scheepe; Jetty van Meeteren; Peter C J de Laat; Marie Lise van Veelen; Tjeerd H R de Jong Journal: Neurosurg Focus Date: 2019-10-01 Impact factor: 4.047
Authors: N Scott Adzick; Elizabeth A Thom; Catherine Y Spong; John W Brock; Pamela K Burrows; Mark P Johnson; Lori J Howell; Jody A Farrell; Mary E Dabrowiak; Leslie N Sutton; Nalin Gupta; Noel B Tulipan; Mary E D'Alton; Diana L Farmer Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-02-09 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Robert Kellogg; Philip Lee; Christopher P Deibert; Zachary Tempel; Nathan T Zwagerman; Christopher M Bonfield; Stephen Johnson; Stephanie Greene Journal: J Neurosurg Pediatr Date: 2018-07-13 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Varun R Kshettry; Michael L Kelly; Benjamin P Rosenbaum; Andreea Seicean; Lee Hwang; Robert J Weil Journal: J Neurosurg Pediatr Date: 2014-04-04 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Irene Kim; Betsy Hopson; Inmaculada Aban; Elias B Rizk; Mark S Dias; Robin Bowman; Laurie L Ackerman; Michael D Partington; Heidi Castillo; Jonathan Castillo; Paula R Peterson; Jeffrey P Blount; Brandon G Rocque Journal: J Neurosurg Pediatr Date: 2018-12-01 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Irene Kim; Betsy Hopson; Inmaculada Aban; Elias B Rizk; Mark S Dias; Robin Bowman; Laurie L Ackerman; Michael D Partington; Heidi Castillo; Jonathan Castillo; Paula R Peterson; Jeffrey P Blount; Brandon G Rocque Journal: J Neurosurg Pediatr Date: 2018-12-01 Impact factor: 2.375