Hydrocephalus is a commonly encountered pathology in the neurosurgical practice. Since the first permanent ventriculo-subarachnoid-subgaleal shunt described by Mikulicz in 1893, there were multiple attempts to find solutions for draining the excess production/less reabsorption of the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) from the brain. Nowadays, the most common technique is the ventriculoperitoneal shunt (VPS), whereas the ventriculoatrial shunt (VAS) is applied only in some rare conditions. To date there are still no specific guidelines or strong evidence in literature that guide the surgeon in the choice between the two methods, and the decision usually relies on the confidence and expertise of the surgeon. Considering the lack of established recommendations, this systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of these two shunting techniques. This systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA protocol (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). No chronological limits of study publications were included. Prospective and retrospective clinical studies, and reports of case series with at least five patients per group and reporting data on comparison between VAS and VPS techniques were eligible for inclusion. Nine studies reporting 3197 patients meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria were identified and included in the quantitative synthesis. The risk of shunt dysfunction/obstruction was significantly lower in the VAS group [odds ratio (OR) 0.49, 95%-CI 0.34-0.70, I2 0%]. The risk of infection was not significantly different between the two groups (OR 1.02, 95%-CI 0.59-1.74, I2 0%). The risk of revision was not significantly different between the two groups; however, the heterogeneity between the studies was significant (OR 0.73, 95%-CI 0.36-1.49, I2 91%). Additionally, the risk of death was not significantly different between the two groups; however, the heterogeneity between the studies was high (OR 1.93, 95%-CI 0.81-4.62, I2 64%). VAS remains a safe surgical alternative for hydrocephalus. The results of this study highlight a lower risk of shunt dysfunction/obstruction variable in the VAS group, with no significant statistical differences regarding the occurrence of at least one infection-related complication. In consequence, the choice between these two techniques must be tailored to the specific characteristics of the patient.Protocol Registration: The review protocol was registered and published in Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO) website with registration number: CRD42023479365.

Ventriculoatrial shunt remains a safe surgical alternative for hydrocephalus: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Bue, Enrico Lo;Morello, Alberto;Bradaschia, Leonardo;Lacatena, Filippo;Colonna, Stefano;Fiumefreddo, Alessandro;Lanotte, Michele Maria;Garbossa, Diego;Cofano, Fabio
2024-01-01

Abstract

Hydrocephalus is a commonly encountered pathology in the neurosurgical practice. Since the first permanent ventriculo-subarachnoid-subgaleal shunt described by Mikulicz in 1893, there were multiple attempts to find solutions for draining the excess production/less reabsorption of the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) from the brain. Nowadays, the most common technique is the ventriculoperitoneal shunt (VPS), whereas the ventriculoatrial shunt (VAS) is applied only in some rare conditions. To date there are still no specific guidelines or strong evidence in literature that guide the surgeon in the choice between the two methods, and the decision usually relies on the confidence and expertise of the surgeon. Considering the lack of established recommendations, this systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of these two shunting techniques. This systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA protocol (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). No chronological limits of study publications were included. Prospective and retrospective clinical studies, and reports of case series with at least five patients per group and reporting data on comparison between VAS and VPS techniques were eligible for inclusion. Nine studies reporting 3197 patients meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria were identified and included in the quantitative synthesis. The risk of shunt dysfunction/obstruction was significantly lower in the VAS group [odds ratio (OR) 0.49, 95%-CI 0.34-0.70, I2 0%]. The risk of infection was not significantly different between the two groups (OR 1.02, 95%-CI 0.59-1.74, I2 0%). The risk of revision was not significantly different between the two groups; however, the heterogeneity between the studies was significant (OR 0.73, 95%-CI 0.36-1.49, I2 91%). Additionally, the risk of death was not significantly different between the two groups; however, the heterogeneity between the studies was high (OR 1.93, 95%-CI 0.81-4.62, I2 64%). VAS remains a safe surgical alternative for hydrocephalus. The results of this study highlight a lower risk of shunt dysfunction/obstruction variable in the VAS group, with no significant statistical differences regarding the occurrence of at least one infection-related complication. In consequence, the choice between these two techniques must be tailored to the specific characteristics of the patient.Protocol Registration: The review protocol was registered and published in Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO) website with registration number: CRD42023479365.
2024
Inglese
Esperti anonimi
14
18460
1
9
9
Hydrocephalus; Shunt; Ventriculo-atrial; Ventriculo-peritoneal; Ventriculoatrial
SVIZZERA
1 – prodotto con file in versione Open Access (allegherò il file al passo 6 - Carica)
262
12
Bue, Enrico Lo; Morello, Alberto; Bellomo, Jacopo; Bradaschia, Leonardo; Lacatena, Filippo; Colonna, Stefano; Fiumefreddo, Alessandro; Stieglitz, Lenn...espandi
info:eu-repo/semantics/article
open
03-CONTRIBUTO IN RIVISTA::03A-Articolo su Rivista
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Scientific Reports 2024.pdf

Accesso aperto

Descrizione: Articolo
Tipo di file: PDF EDITORIALE
Dimensione 1.24 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.24 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2318/2018950
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 0
  • Scopus 0
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 0
social impact