Journal of clinical neuroscience : official journal of the Neurosurgical Society of Australasia · 2021
Systematic review and meta-analysis of external ventricular drain placement accuracy and narrative review of guidance devices.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание 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.
Stuart M J, Antony J, Withers T K, Ng W
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Insertion of external ventricular drain (EVD) is one of the most common neurosurgical procedures performed worldwide. This is generally performed freehand, on the basis of anatomical landmarks. There is significant variability in the reported accuracy of freehand placement, lacking Level I evidence. We present the first meta-analysis of freehand EVD placement accuracy and technologies or techniques to enhance accuracy.
METHODS: We report a systematic review of the Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases according to MOOSE (Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies) guidelines. 37 studies were included for qualitative analysis and 19 studies (2983 cases) for quantitative analysis.
RESULTS: There is substantial heterogeneity in the outcome measures used to report EVD placement accuracy. Of those nineteen studies reporting accuracy using the Kakarla grading system the mean rate of ideal ipsilateral frontal horn placement was 73% (standard deviation ±7%). The use of formal stereotaxic guidance is consistently reported to improve accuracy to >90%, although with variable outcome measures. However, the reported efficacy of other guidance devices or techniques is highly variable. The quality of studies directly comparing all existing non-stereotaxic devices with freehand EVD placement is poor and precludes any assertion of superiority to freehand insertion.
CONCLUSIONS: We provide the first meta analysis of freehand placement accuracy. There is insufficient data to perform a meta-analysis of the relative efficacy of interventions to improve accuracy. Qualitative synthesis of reports of stereotaxic guidance is suggestive of higher accuracy than freehand placement.
METHODS: We report a systematic review of the Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases according to MOOSE (Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies) guidelines. 37 studies were included for qualitative analysis and 19 studies (2983 cases) for quantitative analysis.
RESULTS: There is substantial heterogeneity in the outcome measures used to report EVD placement accuracy. Of those nineteen studies reporting accuracy using the Kakarla grading system the mean rate of ideal ipsilateral frontal horn placement was 73% (standard deviation ±7%). The use of formal stereotaxic guidance is consistently reported to improve accuracy to >90%, although with variable outcome measures. However, the reported efficacy of other guidance devices or techniques is highly variable. The quality of studies directly comparing all existing non-stereotaxic devices with freehand EVD placement is poor and precludes any assertion of superiority to freehand insertion.
CONCLUSIONS: We provide the first meta analysis of freehand placement accuracy. There is insufficient data to perform a meta-analysis of the relative efficacy of interventions to improve accuracy. Qualitative synthesis of reports of stereotaxic guidance is suggestive of higher accuracy than freehand placement.