Diagnostic modalities to determine ventriculoperitoneal shunt malfunction: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Computed tomography
Likelihood ratios
MRI
Sensitivity
Shunt series
Specificity
Ventriculoperitoneal shunt
Journal
The American journal of emergency medicine
ISSN: 1532-8171
Titre abrégé: Am J Emerg Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8309942
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2021
01 2021
Historique:
received:
13
07
2020
revised:
27
08
2020
accepted:
10
09
2020
pubmed:
18
10
2020
medline:
9
2
2021
entrez:
17
10
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Ventriculoperitoneal (VP) shunt malfunction is an emergency. Timely diagnosis can be challenging because shunt malfunction often presents with symptoms mimicking other common pediatric conditions. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine which commonly used imaging modalities; Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), Computed Tomography (CT), X-ray Shunt series or Optic Nerve Sheath Diameter (ONSD) ultrasound, are superior in evaluating shunt malfunction. patients less than 21 years old with symptoms of shunt malfunction. We calculated the pooled sensitivity, specificity, Likelihood Ratios (LR+, LR-) using a random-effects model. Eight studies were included encompassing 1906 patients with a prevalence of VP shunt malfunction of (29.3%). Shunt series: sensitivity (14%-53%), specificity (99%), LR+ (23.2), and LR- (0.47-0.87). CT scan: sensitivity (53%-100%), specificity (27%-98%), LR+ (1.34-22.87), LR- (0.37). MRI: sensitivity (57%), specificity (93%), LR+ (7.66), and LR- (0.49). ONSD: sensitivity (64%), specificity (22%-68%), LR+ (4.4-8.7), LR- (0.93). A positive shunt series, CT scan, MRI, or ONSD has a post-test probability of (23%-84%). A normal shunt series, CT scan, MRI, or ONSD results in a post-test probability of (7%-31%). A positive shunt series results in a post-test probability of 80%, which is equivalent to the post-test probability of CT scan (23-84%) and MRI (83%). Despite the low sensitivity, a positive shunt series obviates the need for further imaging studies. Prompt referral for neurosurgical intervention is recommended. A negative shunt series or any result (positive or negative) from CT, MRI, or ONSD will still require an emergent neurosurgical referral.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Ventriculoperitoneal (VP) shunt malfunction is an emergency. Timely diagnosis can be challenging because shunt malfunction often presents with symptoms mimicking other common pediatric conditions.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine which commonly used imaging modalities; Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), Computed Tomography (CT), X-ray Shunt series or Optic Nerve Sheath Diameter (ONSD) ultrasound, are superior in evaluating shunt malfunction.
INCLUSION CRITERIA
patients less than 21 years old with symptoms of shunt malfunction. We calculated the pooled sensitivity, specificity, Likelihood Ratios (LR+, LR-) using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
Eight studies were included encompassing 1906 patients with a prevalence of VP shunt malfunction of (29.3%). Shunt series: sensitivity (14%-53%), specificity (99%), LR+ (23.2), and LR- (0.47-0.87). CT scan: sensitivity (53%-100%), specificity (27%-98%), LR+ (1.34-22.87), LR- (0.37). MRI: sensitivity (57%), specificity (93%), LR+ (7.66), and LR- (0.49). ONSD: sensitivity (64%), specificity (22%-68%), LR+ (4.4-8.7), LR- (0.93). A positive shunt series, CT scan, MRI, or ONSD has a post-test probability of (23%-84%). A normal shunt series, CT scan, MRI, or ONSD results in a post-test probability of (7%-31%). A positive shunt series results in a post-test probability of 80%, which is equivalent to the post-test probability of CT scan (23-84%) and MRI (83%).
CONCLUSION
Despite the low sensitivity, a positive shunt series obviates the need for further imaging studies. Prompt referral for neurosurgical intervention is recommended. A negative shunt series or any result (positive or negative) from CT, MRI, or ONSD will still require an emergent neurosurgical referral.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33067062
pii: S0735-6757(20)30818-4
doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2020.09.024
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
180-189Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Published by Elsevier Inc.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of Competing Interest All authors have no financial of personal relationships with other people or organizations that could in appropriately influence this work.