Neurosurgery · 2010
Endoscopic choroid plexus cauterization versus ventriculoperitoneal shunt for hydranencephaly and near hydranencephaly: a prospective study.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Malheiros José Augusto, Trivelato Felipe Padovani, Oliveira Marcelo Magaldi, Gusmão Sebastião, Cochrane David Douglas, Steinbok Paul
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To prospectively evaluate the results of endoscopic choroid plexus cauterization (ECPC) and ventriculoperitoneal shunts (VPSs) in infants with hydranencephaly or near hydranencephaly.
METHODS: We prospectively collected clinical data from all untreated hydranencephalic and near hydranencephalic children from October 2006 to March 2008. All patients treated were randomly divided into 2 groups, ECPC or VPS, and submitted to either endoscopic choroid plexus cauterization or ventriculoperitoneal shunt placement.
RESULTS: Seventeen patients were entered into the study. ECPC was completed in 9 patients; the procedure successfully controlled excessive head circumference and signs of increased intracranial pressure in 8 of these patients (88.8%). One endoscopic procedure in a hydranencephalic child failed after 7 months, resulting in VPS placement. Thus, of the 10 patients randomized to ECPC, 8 were treated successfully by ECPC (80%), and 2 went on to have a VPS. There were no complications related to this method of treatment. Seven children were randomized to the VPS group; and of these, 2 patients (28.5%) required shunt revisions during follow-up. There were no complications related to shunt placement. There was no difference in the success rate between patients randomized to ECPC and VPS, but the ECPC was more economical.
CONCLUSION: ECPC is an acceptable alternative to VPS for treatment of hydranencephaly and near hydranencephaly. It is a single, definitive, safe, effective, and economical treatment that may avoid the complications of shunting.
METHODS: We prospectively collected clinical data from all untreated hydranencephalic and near hydranencephalic children from October 2006 to March 2008. All patients treated were randomly divided into 2 groups, ECPC or VPS, and submitted to either endoscopic choroid plexus cauterization or ventriculoperitoneal shunt placement.
RESULTS: Seventeen patients were entered into the study. ECPC was completed in 9 patients; the procedure successfully controlled excessive head circumference and signs of increased intracranial pressure in 8 of these patients (88.8%). One endoscopic procedure in a hydranencephalic child failed after 7 months, resulting in VPS placement. Thus, of the 10 patients randomized to ECPC, 8 were treated successfully by ECPC (80%), and 2 went on to have a VPS. There were no complications related to this method of treatment. Seven children were randomized to the VPS group; and of these, 2 patients (28.5%) required shunt revisions during follow-up. There were no complications related to shunt placement. There was no difference in the success rate between patients randomized to ECPC and VPS, but the ECPC was more economical.
CONCLUSION: ECPC is an acceptable alternative to VPS for treatment of hydranencephaly and near hydranencephaly. It is a single, definitive, safe, effective, and economical treatment that may avoid the complications of shunting.