Ventriculoatrial shunt remains a safe surgical alternative for hydrocephalus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Hydrocephalus
Shunt
Ventriculo-atrial
Ventriculo-peritoneal
Ventriculoatrial
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 Aug 2024
09 Aug 2024
Historique:
received:
21
02
2024
accepted:
16
05
2024
medline:
9
8
2024
pubmed:
9
8
2024
entrez:
8
8
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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, I
Identifiants
pubmed: 39117692
doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-62366-8
pii: 10.1038/s41598-024-62366-8
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
18460Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Jensen, H. P. & Amador, L. V. Ventriculo-auriculostomy in the treatment of hydrocephalus. Neurochirurgia (Stuttg). 4, 99–113 (1961).
pubmed: 14451644
Ames, R. H. Ventriculo-peritoneal shunts in the management of hydrocephalus. J Neurosurg. 27(6), 525–529 (1967).
doi: 10.3171/jns.1967.27.6.0525
pubmed: 6065126
Oliveira, L. D. B. et al. Incidence and nature of complications associated with ventriculoatrial shunt placement: A systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis. Clin. Neurol. Neurosurg. 233, 107950 (2023).
doi: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2023.107950
pubmed: 37673013
Tomei, K. L. The evolution of cerebrospinal fluid shunts: Advances in technology and technique. Pediatr. Neurosurg. 52(6), 369–380 (2017).
doi: 10.1159/000477174
pubmed: 28704811
Natarajan, A. & Mazhar, S. Right heart complications of ventriculoatrial shunt. Eur. Heart J. 32(17), 2134 (2011).
doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehr164
pubmed: 21609972
Page, M. J. et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 372, n71 (2021).
doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71
pubmed: 33782057
pmcid: 8005924
Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z. & Elmagarmid, A. Rayyan: A web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst. Rev. 5(1), 210 (2016).
doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4
pubmed: 27919275
pmcid: 5139140
Sterne, J. A. et al. ROBINS-I: A tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 355, i4919 (2016).
doi: 10.1136/bmj.i4919
pubmed: 27733354
pmcid: 5062054
Ignelzi, R. J. & Kirsch, W. M. Follow up analysis of ventriculoperitoneal and ventriculoatrial shunts for hydrocephalus. J. Neurosurg. 42(6), 679–682 (1975).
doi: 10.3171/jns.1975.42.6.0679
pubmed: 1141964
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. 72(3), 385–390 (1983).
doi: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.1983.tb09733.x
pubmed: 6880724
Lam, C. H. & Villemure, J.-G. Comparison between ventriculoatrial and ventriculoperitoneal shunting in the adult population. Br. J. Neurosurg. 11(1), 43–48 (1997).
doi: 10.1080/02688699746681
pubmed: 9156017
Borgbjerg, B. M., Gjerris, F., Albeck, M. J., Hauerberg, J. & Børgesen, S. V. A comparison between ventriculo-peritoneal and ventriculo-atrial cerebrospinal fluid shunts in relation to rate of revision and durability. Acta Neurochir. 140(5), 459–465 (1998).
doi: 10.1007/s007010050125
pubmed: 9728246
McGovern, R. A., Kelly, K. M., Chan, A. K., Morrissey, N. J. & Mckhann, G. M. II. Should ventriculoatrial shunting be the procedure of choice for normal-pressure hydrocephalus? Clinical article. J. Neurosurg. 120(6), 1458–1464 (2014).
doi: 10.3171/2014.1.JNS131808
pubmed: 24605842
Hung, A. L. et al. Ventriculoatrial versus ventriculoperitoneal shunt complications in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. Clin. Neurol. Neurosurg. 157, 1–6 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2017.03.014
pubmed: 28347957
Keating, R. et al. Ventriculoperitoneal vs percutanously-placed ventriculoatrial shunts: Which is better? A single institution’s 13-year experience. Child’s Nerv. Syst. 32(10), 2018–2019 (2016).
Fernell, E., Wendt, V. L. & Serlo, W. Ventriculoatrial or ventriculoperitoneal shunts in the treatment of hydrocephalus in children?. Zeitschrift fur Kinderchirurgie 40(SUPPL 1), 12–14 (1985).
pubmed: 4090749
Keucher, T. R. & Mealey, J. Jr. Long-term results after ventriculoatrial and ventriculoperitoneal shunting for infantile hydrocephalus. J. Neurosurg. 50(2), 179–186 (1979).
doi: 10.3171/jns.1979.50.2.0179
pubmed: 430130
Aschoff, A., Kremer, P., Hashemi, B. & Kunze, S. The scientific history of hydrocephalus and its treatment. Neurosurg. Rev. 22(2–3), 65–67 (1999).
Koleva, M. & De Jesus, O. Hydrocephalus. In Treasure Island (FL); 2023.
Kalousdian, S., Karlan, M. S. & Williams, M. A. Silicone elastomer cerebrospinal fluid shunt systems. Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association. Neurosurgery 42(4), 887–892 (1998).
doi: 10.1097/00006123-199804000-00113
pubmed: 9574653
Jennings, K., Stephens, B. & Cahanding, N. Shunt through the heart and you’re to blame. Emerg. Radiol. 23(6), 593–594 (2016).
Little, J. R., Rhoton, A. L. J. & Mellinger, J. F. Comparison of ventriculoperitoneal and ventriculoatrial shunts for hydrocephalus in children. Mayo Clin. Proc. 47(6), 396–401 (1972).
pubmed: 5041686
Morosanu, C. O., Filip, G. A., Nicolae, L. & Florian, I. S. From the heart to the bladder—Particularities of ventricular shunt topography and the current status of cerebrospinal fluid diversion sites. Neurosurg. Rev. 43(3), 847–860 (2020).
doi: 10.1007/s10143-018-1033-2
pubmed: 30338415
Giammalva, G. R., Grassi, N., Lo Bue, E., Brunasso, L., Maugeri, R., Iacopino, D.G., et al. The subway tunneling technique for distal shunt catheter insertion. Vol. 34, British journal of neurosurgery. England; 2020. p. 18–9.
Reddy, G. K., Bollam, P. & Caldito, G. Long-term outcomes of ventriculoperitoneal shunt surgery in patients with hydrocephalus. World Neurosurg. 81(2), 404–410 (2014).
doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2013.01.096
pubmed: 23380280
Vivas-Buitrago, T., Lu, J., Robison, J., Hung, A., Adam, A., Sankey, E., et al. Ventricular-atrial shunting complications rate in normal pressure hydrocephalus. A single surgeon practice experience. Fluids Barriers CNS 2017;14. Available from: https://www.embase.com/search/results?subaction=viewrecord&id=L619607625&from=export