Treatment strategies for hydrocephalus related to Dandy-Walker syndrome: evaluating procedure selection and success within the Hydrocephalus Clinical Research Network.

Dandy-Walker ETV Hydrocephalus Clinical Research Network endoscopic third ventriculostomy posterior fossa cyst

Journal

Journal of neurosurgery. Pediatrics
ISSN: 1933-0715
Titre abrégé: J Neurosurg Pediatr
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101463759

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
30 Apr 2021
Historique:
received: 28 09 2020
accepted: 16 11 2020
medline: 1 5 2021
pubmed: 1 5 2021
entrez: 30 4 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Treating Dandy-Walker syndrome-related hydrocephalus (DWSH) involves either a CSF shunt-based or endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV)-based procedure. However, comparative investigations are lacking. This study aimed to compare shunt-based and ETV-based treatment strategies utilizing archival data from the Hydrocephalus Clinical Research Network (HCRN) registry. A retrospective review of prospectively collected and maintained data on children with DWSH, available from the HCRN registry (14 sites, 2008-2018), was performed. The primary outcome was revision-free survival of the initial surgical intervention. The primary exposure was either shunt-based (i.e., cystoperitoneal shunt [CPS], ventriculoperitoneal shunt [VPS], and/or dual-compartment) or ETV-based (i.e., ETV alone or with choroid plexus cauterization [CPC]) initial surgical treatment. Primary analysis included multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. Of 8400 HCRN patients, 151 (1.8%) had DWSH. Among these, the 102 patients who underwent shunt placement (79 VPSs, 16 CPSs, 3 other, and 4 multiple proximal catheter) were younger (6.6 vs 18.8 months, p < 0.001) and more frequently had 1 or more comorbidities (37.3% vs 14.3%, p = 0.005) than the 49 ETV-treated children (28 ETV-CPC). Fifty percent of the shunt-based and 51% of the ETV-based treatments failed. Notably, 100% (4/4) of the dual-compartment shunts failed. Adjusting for age, baseline ventricular size, and comorbidities, ETV-based treatment was not significantly associated with earlier failure compared with shunt-based treatment (HR for failure 1.32, 95% CI 0.77-2.26; p = 0.321). Complication rates were low: 4.9% and 6.1% (p = 0.715) for shunt- and ETV-based procedures, respectively. There was no difference in survival between ETV-CPC- and ETV-based treatment when adjusting for age (HR for failure 0.86, 95% CI 0.29-2.55, p = 0.783). In this North American, multicenter, prospective database review, shunt-based and ETV-based primary treatment strategies of DWSH appear similarly durable. Pediatric neurosurgeons can reasonably consider ETV-based initial treatment given the similar durability and the low complication rate. However, given the observational nature of this study, the treating surgeon might need to consider subgroups that were too small for a separate analysis. Very young children with comorbidities were more commonly treated with shunts, and older children with fewer comorbidities were offered ETV-based treatment. Future studies may determine preoperative characteristics associated with ETV treatment success in this population.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33930865
doi: 10.3171/2020.11.PEDS20806
pii: 2020.11.PEDS20806
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

93-101

Auteurs

Aaron M Yengo-Kahn (AM)

1Department of Neurosurgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center; and.
2Surgical Outcomes Center for Kids, Monroe Carell Jr. Children's Hospital at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee.

John C Wellons (JC)

1Department of Neurosurgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center; and.
2Surgical Outcomes Center for Kids, Monroe Carell Jr. Children's Hospital at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee.

Todd C Hankinson (TC)

3Department of Neurosurgery, Children's Hospital Colorado, Colorado Springs, Colorado.

Jason S Hauptman (JS)

4Department of Neurosurgery, Seattle Children's Hospital, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

Eric M Jackson (EM)

5Department of Neurosurgery, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.

Hailey Jensen (H)

Departments of6Pediatrics and.

Mark D Krieger (MD)

7Department of Neurosurgery, Children's Hospital Los Angeles, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.

Abhaya V Kulkarni (AV)

8Division of Neurosurgery, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

David D Limbrick (DD)

9Department of Neurosurgery, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri.

Patrick J McDonald (PJ)

10Division of Neurosurgery, British Columbia Children's Hospital, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Robert P Naftel (RP)

1Department of Neurosurgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center; and.
2Surgical Outcomes Center for Kids, Monroe Carell Jr. Children's Hospital at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee.

Jonathan A Pindrik (JA)

11Department of Neurosurgery, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, Ohio.

Ian F Pollack (IF)

12Department of Neurosurgery, UPMC Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Ron Reeder (R)

Departments of6Pediatrics and.

Jay Riva-Cambrin (J)

13Division of Neurosurgery, Alberta Children's Hospital, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Curtis J Rozzelle (CJ)

14Division of Neurosurgery, Children's of Alabama, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Alabama; and.

Mandeep S Tamber (MS)

10Division of Neurosurgery, British Columbia Children's Hospital, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

William E Whitehead (WE)

15Department of Neurosurgery, Texas Children's Hospital, Houston, Texas.

John R W Kestle (JRW)

16Neurosurgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Classifications MeSH