DOI 10.1016/j.wneu.2021.10.183
Management of Slit Ventricle Syndrome: A Single-Center Case Series of 32 Surgically Treated Patients.
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE
Slit ventricle syndrome (SVS) is an iatrogenic disease occurring in patients with ventriculoperitoneal shunt. This article reports the management modalities and results in a case series from a single center.
METHODS
We reviewed a series 48 hospitalized patients with severe SVS whom we managed in a 10-year period. Thirty-seven patients harboring programmable valves (P-valves) first underwent attempts at valve reprogramming. This treatment produced no effect in 21 patients, who therefore required surgical treatment. Surgery was also required by 11 patients without P-valve. Accordingly, 32 patients had to be operatively treated by shunt externalization followed by valve replacement or endoscopic third ventriculostomy basing on intracranial pressure and ventricular size. The new valve was either ProGav Mietke (Aesculap) or Medos Codman (Integra), each equipped with its own antisiphon system. In selected cases, a programmable antisiphon system (ProSa Mietke) was used.
RESULTS
Surgical mortality was 3% and major morbidity accounted for 6%. Complete resolution was obtained in 55% of cases, improvement in 32%, and no effect or worsening in 13%. Only 1 patient became shunt free after endoscopic third ventriculostomy. Medos and ProGrav provided comparable outcomes, whereas ProSa was determinant in selected cases. Pediatric age, uncomplicated shunt courses, and short SVS histories were significantly favorable indicators.
CONCLUSIONS
SVS management remains problematic. However, this study individuated factors that may improve the outcome, such as wider use of P-valves to treat hydrocephalus, timely diagnosis of overdrainage, and earlier and more aggressive indications to manage SVS.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
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.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.