Operative neurosurgery (Hagerstown, Md.) · 2026
Risk Factors for Surgical Revision Following Ventricular Shunt Placement for Idiopathic Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hamouda Abdelrahman M, Kumar Rahul, Pennington Zach, Naylor Ryan M, McQuinn Michelle W, Astudillo Potes Maria D, Jusue-Torres Ignacio, Loomis Erica A, Kim Brian D, Heller Stephanie F, Ballinger Beth A, Graff-Radford Jonathan, Jones David T, Cutsforth-Gregory Jeremy K, Cogswell Petrice M, Rinaldo Lorenzo, Meyer Frederic B, Elder Benjamin D
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Ventriculoperitoneal shunt (VPS) placement is a common treatment for idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH), but patients may require VPS revision. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a standardized VPS placement protocol by comparing indications and rates of shunt revision compared with a historical institutional cohort.
METHODS: All patients treated with VPS for "suspected" iNPH at a tertiary care center between January 2000 and January 2023 were retrospectively reviewed and divided into temporally distinct historical (before 2017) and standardized (after 2017) cohorts. Cumulative incidence and timing of VPS revision were compared using competing risks analyses.
RESULTS: A total of 561 patients (median age 75.0 years) were identified with 324 (57.8%) in the historical and 237 (42.2%) in the standardized cohorts. Significant variations in surgical technique and shunt hardware were noted between the cohorts. With a median follow-up of 11.4 months for historical and 12.4 months for standardized cohort, shunt revisions occurred in 19.4% and 8.4% of patients in the historical and standardized cohorts, respectively (P < .001). Revision indications also varied significantly with lower rates of overdrainage (P < .001), infection (P < .001), and proximal malfunction (P = .042) but higher rate of distal malfunction (P = .03) in the standardized cohort. Notably, no infections were noted in the standardized cohort.
CONCLUSION: Risk of shunt revision among iNPH patients may be associated with modifiable factors related to surgical technique and shunt hardware selection. Importantly, no short-term complications such as hemorrhage, infection, or catheter malposition were observed with the standardized protocol. Development and refinement of standardized shunt protocols for iNPH patients should be commonplace to facilitate tracking, identification, and modification of modifiable technical risk factors.
METHODS: All patients treated with VPS for "suspected" iNPH at a tertiary care center between January 2000 and January 2023 were retrospectively reviewed and divided into temporally distinct historical (before 2017) and standardized (after 2017) cohorts. Cumulative incidence and timing of VPS revision were compared using competing risks analyses.
RESULTS: A total of 561 patients (median age 75.0 years) were identified with 324 (57.8%) in the historical and 237 (42.2%) in the standardized cohorts. Significant variations in surgical technique and shunt hardware were noted between the cohorts. With a median follow-up of 11.4 months for historical and 12.4 months for standardized cohort, shunt revisions occurred in 19.4% and 8.4% of patients in the historical and standardized cohorts, respectively (P < .001). Revision indications also varied significantly with lower rates of overdrainage (P < .001), infection (P < .001), and proximal malfunction (P = .042) but higher rate of distal malfunction (P = .03) in the standardized cohort. Notably, no infections were noted in the standardized cohort.
CONCLUSION: Risk of shunt revision among iNPH patients may be associated with modifiable factors related to surgical technique and shunt hardware selection. Importantly, no short-term complications such as hemorrhage, infection, or catheter malposition were observed with the standardized protocol. Development and refinement of standardized shunt protocols for iNPH patients should be commonplace to facilitate tracking, identification, and modification of modifiable technical risk factors.