Ventriculoatrial Shunt Versus Ventriculoperitoneal Shunt: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Journal
Neurosurgery
ISSN: 1524-4040
Titre abrégé: Neurosurgery
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7802914
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 Dec 2023
20 Dec 2023
Historique:
received:
08
09
2023
accepted:
14
10
2023
medline:
20
12
2023
pubmed:
20
12
2023
entrez:
20
12
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Ventriculoperitoneal shunt (VPS) is usually the primary choice for cerebrospinal fluid shunting for most neurosurgeons, while ventriculoatrial shunt (VAS) is a second-line procedure because of historical complications. Remarkably, there is no robust evidence claiming the superiority of VPS over VAS. Thus, we aimed to compare both procedures through a meta-analysis. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, the authors systematically searched the literature for articles comparing VAS with VPS. The included articles had to detail one of the following outcomes: revisions, infections, shunt-related mortality, or complications. In addition, the cohort for each shunt model had to encompass more than 4 patients. Of 1872 articles, 16 met our criteria, involving 4304 patients, with 1619 undergoing VAS and 2685 receiving VPS placement. Analysis of revision surgeries showed no significant difference between VAS and VPS (risk ratio [RR] = 1.10, 95% CI: 0.9-1.34; I2 = 84%, random effects). Regarding infections, the analysis also found no significant difference between the groups (RR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.36-1.25; I2 = 74%, random effects). There was no statistically significant disparity between both methods concerning shunt-related deaths (RR = 2.11, 95% CI: 0.68-6.60; I2 = 56%, random effects). Included studies after 2000 showed no VAS led to cardiopulmonary complications, and only 1 shunt-related death could be identified. Both methods show no significant differences in procedure revisions, infections, and shunt-related mortality. The literature is outdated, research in adults is lacking, and future randomized studies are crucial to understand the profile of VAS when comparing it with VPS. The final decision on which distal site for cerebrospinal shunting to use should be based on the patient's characteristics and the surgeon's expertise.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
Ventriculoperitoneal shunt (VPS) is usually the primary choice for cerebrospinal fluid shunting for most neurosurgeons, while ventriculoatrial shunt (VAS) is a second-line procedure because of historical complications. Remarkably, there is no robust evidence claiming the superiority of VPS over VAS. Thus, we aimed to compare both procedures through a meta-analysis.
METHODS
METHODS
Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, the authors systematically searched the literature for articles comparing VAS with VPS. The included articles had to detail one of the following outcomes: revisions, infections, shunt-related mortality, or complications. In addition, the cohort for each shunt model had to encompass more than 4 patients.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of 1872 articles, 16 met our criteria, involving 4304 patients, with 1619 undergoing VAS and 2685 receiving VPS placement. Analysis of revision surgeries showed no significant difference between VAS and VPS (risk ratio [RR] = 1.10, 95% CI: 0.9-1.34; I2 = 84%, random effects). Regarding infections, the analysis also found no significant difference between the groups (RR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.36-1.25; I2 = 74%, random effects). There was no statistically significant disparity between both methods concerning shunt-related deaths (RR = 2.11, 95% CI: 0.68-6.60; I2 = 56%, random effects). Included studies after 2000 showed no VAS led to cardiopulmonary complications, and only 1 shunt-related death could be identified.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Both methods show no significant differences in procedure revisions, infections, and shunt-related mortality. The literature is outdated, research in adults is lacking, and future randomized studies are crucial to understand the profile of VAS when comparing it with VPS. The final decision on which distal site for cerebrospinal shunting to use should be based on the patient's characteristics and the surgeon's expertise.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38117090
doi: 10.1227/neu.0000000000002788
pii: 00006123-990000000-01005
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
Copyright © Congress of Neurological Surgeons 2023. All rights reserved.
Références
Rymarczuk GN, Keating RF, Coughlin DJ, et al. A comparison of ventriculoperitoneal and ventriculoatrial shunts in a population of 544 consecutive pediatric patients [published correction appears in Neurosurgery. 2020 Feb 1;86(2):315]. Neurosurgery. 2020;87(1):80-85.
Wu D, Guan Z, Xiao L, Li D. Thrombosis associated with ventriculoatrial shunts. Neurosurg Rev. 2022;45(2):1111-1122.
Gmeiner M, Wagner H, van Ouwerkerk WJR, et al. Long-term outcomes in ventriculoatrial shunt surgery in patients with pediatric hydrocephalus: retrospective single-center study. World Neurosurg. 2020;138:e112-e118.
Haasnoot K, van Vught AJ. Pulmonary hypertension complicating a ventriculo-atrial shunt. Eur J Pediatr. 1992;151(10):748-750.
Samtleben W, Bauriedel G, Bosch T, Goetz C, Klare B, Gurland HJ. Renal complications of infected ventriculoatrial shunts. Artif Organs. 1993;17(8):695-701.
Yavuz C, Demırtas S, Calıskan A, et al. Reasons, procedures, and outcomes in ventriculoatrial shunts: a single-center experience. Surg Neurol Int. 2013;4:10.
Hanak BW, Bonow RH, Harris CA, Browd SR. Cerebrospinal fluid shunting complications in children. Pediatr Neurosurg. 2017;52(6):381-400.
Zhang J, Qu C, Wang Z, et al. Improved ventriculoatrial shunt for cerebrospinal fluid diversion after multiple ventriculoperitoneal shunt failures. Surg Neurol. 2009;72(Suppl 1):s29-s33; discussion S33-4.
Oliveira LdB, Welling LC, Viegas FAF, et al. Incidence and nature of complications associated with ventriculoatrial shunt placement: a systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2023;233:107950.
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;134:178-189.
Abu-Zidan FM, Abbas AK, Hefny AF. Clinical “case series”: a concept analysis. Afr Health Sci. 2012;12(4):557-562.
Borgbjerg BM, Gjerris F, Albeck MJ, Hauerberg J, Børgesen SE. Frequency and causes of shunt revisions in different cerebrospinal fluid shunt types. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 1995;136(3-4):189-194.
Borgbjerg BM, Gjerris F, Albeck MJ, Børgesen SE. Risk of infection after cerebrospinal fluid shunt: an analysis of 884 first-time shunts. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 1995;136(1-2):1-7.
Lundar T, Langmoen IA, Hovind KH. Fatal cardiopulmonary complications in children treated with ventriculoatrial shunts. Childs Nerv Syst. 1991;7(4):215-217.
Qian Z, Gao L, Wang K, Pandey S. Delayed catheter-related intracranial hemorrhage after a ventriculoperitoneal or ventriculoatrial shunt in hydrocephalus. World Neurosurg. 2017;107:846-851.
Conen A, Walti LN, Merlo A, Fluckiger U, Battegay M, Trampuz A. Characteristics and treatment outcome of cerebrospinal fluid shunt-associated infections in adults: a retrospective analysis over an 11-year period. Clin Infect Dis. 2008;47(1):73-82.
Morissette I, Gourdeau M, Francoeur J. CSF shunt infections: a fifteen-year experience with emphasis on management and outcome. Can J Neurol Sci. 1993;20(2):118-122.
Forward KR, Fewer HD, Stiver HG. Cerebrospinal fluid shunt infections. A review of 35 infections in 32 patients. J Neurosurg. 1983;59(3):389-394.
Beuriat PA, Puget S, Cinalli G, et al. Hydrocephalus treatment in children: long-term outcome in 975 consecutive patients. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2017;20(1):10-18.
Vernet O, Rilliet B. Late complications of ventriculoatrial or ventriculoperitoneal shunts. Lancet. 2001;358(9293):1569-1570.
Weninger M, Salzer HR, Pollak A, et al. External ventricular drainage for treatment of rapidly progressive posthemorrhagic hydrocephalus. Neurosurgery. 1992;31(1):52-57; discussion 57-8.
Schoenbaum SC, Gardner P, Shillito J. Infections of cerebrospinal fluid shunts: epidemiology, clinical manifestations, and therapy. J Infect Dis. 1975;131(5):543-552.
Kontny U, Höfling B, Gutjahr P, Voth D, Schwarz M, Schmitt HJ. CSF shunt infections in children. Infection. 1993;21(2):89-92.
Kelly PD, Yengo-Kahn AM, Naftel RP. The survival of reimplanted shunts following externalization: a single-institution cohort study. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2021;27(4):382-390.
Woodworth GF, McGirt MJ, Elfert P, Sciubba DM, Rigamonti D. Frameless stereotactic ventricular shunt placement for idiopathic intracranial hypertension. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg. 2005;83(1):12-16.
Mazza C, Pasqualin A, Da Pian R. Results of treatment with ventriculoatrial and ventriculoperitoneal shunt in infantile nontumoral hydrocephalus. Childs Brain. 1980;7(1):1-14.
Lam CH, Villemure JG. Comparison between ventriculoatrial and ventriculoperitoneal shunting in the adult population. Br J Neurosurg. 1997;11(1):43-48.
Borgbjerg BM, Gjerris F, Albeck MJ, Hauerberg J, Børgesen SV. A comparison between ventriculo-peritoneal and ventriculo-atrial cerebrospinal fluid shunts in relation to rate of revision and durability. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 1998;140(5):459-464; discussion 465.
Ignelzi RJ, Kirsch WM. Follow-up analysis of ventriculoperitoneal and ventriculoatrial shunts for hydrocephalus. J Neurosurg. 1975;42(6):679-682.
Keucher TR, Mealey J Jr. Long-term results after ventriculoatrial and ventriculoperitoneal shunting for infantile hydrocephalus. J Neurosurg. 1979;50(2):179-186.
Fernell E, von Wendt L, Serlo W, Heikkinen E, Andersson H. Ventriculoatrial or ventriculoperitoneal shunts in the treatment of hydrocephalus in children? Z Kinderchir. 1985;40(Suppl 1):12-14.
Hung AL, Vivas-Buitrago T, Adam A, et al. Ventriculoatrial versus ventriculoperitoneal shunt complications in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2017;157:1-6.
McGovern RA, Kelly KM, Chan AK, Morrissey NJ, McKhann GM 2nd. Should ventriculoatrial shunting be the procedure of choice for normal-pressure hydrocephalus? J Neurosurg. 2014;120(6):1458-1464.
Puca A, Anile C, Maira G, Rossi G. Cerebrospinal fluid shunting for hydrocephalus in the adult: factors related to shunt revision. Neurosurgery. 1991;29(6):822-826.
Olsen L, Frykberg T. Complications in the treatment of hydrocephalus in children. A comparison of ventriculoatrial and ventriculoperitoneal shunts in a 20-year material. Acta Paediatr Scand. 1983;72(3):385-390.
Smely C, Van Velthoven V. Comparative study of two customary cerebrospinal fluid shunting systems in early childhood hydrocephalus. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 1997;139(9):875-881; discussion 882.
Reinprecht A, Dietrich W, Berger A, Bavinzski G, Weninger M, Czech T. Posthemorrhagic hydrocephalus in preterm infants: long-term follow-up and shunt-related complications. Childs Nerv Syst. 2001;17(11):663-669.
Holste KG, Vernamonti J, Bah MG, et al. Ventriculoatrial and ventriculoperitoneal shunt malfunction and infection in infants with necrotizing enterocolitis. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2023;32(5):590-596.
Farahmand D, Hilmarsson H, Högfeldt M, Tisell M. Perioperative risk factors for short term shunt revisions in adult hydrocephalus patients. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2009;80(11):1248-1253.
Pierro A, Manalang LR, May PL, Cooke RW, Cudmore RE, Lloyd DA. Necrotizing enterocolitis complicating the management of posthemorrhagic hydrocephalus. J Pediatr Surg. 1993;28(8):982-985.
Harland TA, Winston KR, Jovanovich AJ, Johnson RJ. Shunt nephritis: an increasingly unfamiliar diagnosis. World Neurosurg. 2018;111:346-348.
Konar SK, Maiti TK, Bir SC, Kalakoti P, Nanda A. Robert H. Pudenz (1911-1998) and ventriculoatrial shunt: historical perspective. World Neurosurg. 2015;84(5):1437-1440.
Segura-Hernández A, Hakim F, Ramón JF, et al. Ventriculo-atrial shunt. Comparison of an ultrasound-guided peel-away technique versus conventional technique in the management of normal pressure hydrocephalus: a retrospective cohort. Surg Neurol Int. 2021;12:531.
Harrison MJ, Welling BG, DuBois JJ. A new method for inserting the atrial end of a ventriculoatrial shunt. Technical note. J Neurosurg. 1996;84(4):705-707.
Metellus P, Hsu W, Kharkar S, Kapoor S, Scott W, Rigamonti D. Accuracy of percutaneous placement of a ventriculoatrial shunt under ultrasonography guidance: a retrospective study at a single institution. J Neurosurg. 2009;110(5):867-870.
Crowley RW, Dumont AS, Asthagiri AR, et al. Intraoperative ultrasound guidance for the placement of permanent ventricular cerebrospinal fluid shunt catheters: a single-center historical cohort study. World Neurosurg. 2014;81(2):397-403.
Arts SH, Boogaarts HD, van Lindert EJ. Route of antibiotic prophylaxis for prevention of cerebrospinal fluid-shunt infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;6(6):cd012902.
Khaitan L, Brennan EJ Jr. A laparoscopic approach to ventriculoperitoneal shunt placement in adults. Surg Endosc. 1999;13(10):1007-1009.
Khosrovi H, Kaufman HH, Hrabovsky E, Bloomfield SM, Prabhu V, el-Kadi HA. Laparoscopic-assisted distal ventriculoperitoneal shunt placement. Surg Neurol. 1998;49(2):127-134; discussion 134-5.
Roth JS, Park AE, Gewirtz R. Minilaparoscopically assisted placement of ventriculoperitoneal shunts. Surg Endosc. 2000;14(5):461-463.
Raysi Dehcordi S, De Tommasi C, Ricci A, et al. Laparoscopy-assisted ventriculoperitoneal shunt surgery: personal experience and review of the literature. Neurosurg Rev. 2011;34(3):363-370; discussion 370-1.
Jin MC, Wu A, Azad TD, et al. Evaluating shunt survival following ventriculoperitoneal shunting with and without stereotactic navigation in previously Shunt-Naïve patients. World Neurosurg. 2020;136:e671-e682.