3.8 Article

Neuroendoscopic third ventriculostomy for hydrocephalus in adults: Report of a single unit's experience with 63 cases

Journal

SURGICAL NEUROLOGY
Volume 55, Issue 2, Pages 74-78

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0090-3019(01)00352-4

Keywords

hydrocephalus; neuroendoscopic third ventriculostomy; complications; adult

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND Neuroendoscopic third ventriculostomy (NTV) is becoming a first line treatment for hydrocephalus in this center. Its use in a consecutive series of adults is reported. METHOD Initially a retrospective data collection after 7 months becoming prospective studying all patients who underwent NTV in this center. The adults (17 years or older) have been studied. RESULTS Sixty-three patients met the criteria for inclusion: 38 male, 25 female. Mean age at first NTV 37.5 years. There was an 80% success rate (i.e., no further therapy for the hydrocephalus required). Follow-up was for a mean of 3.1 years. The largest subgroup were patients with third ventricular tumours (35%), of whom 86% were successfully treated. Mean time to failure for the whole series was 8.5 months (range immediate-30 months). Complications occurred in 17.5%; those deemed serious in 11%. There were three deaths (4.7%) within 30 days of the procedure. There were six other deaths during follow-up, five because of tumour progression and one because of pneumonia. CONCLUSIONS This procedure lends itself to the treatment of hydrocephalus in adults and appears to be more successful than in young children. It is efficacious in both previously shunted and non shunted patients. It is now the first-line treatment for noncommunicating hydrocephalus in this center and also for patients with shunt failure who are anatomically suitable, having cerebrospinal fluid spaces large enough to admit the endoscope. The complication and mortality rates compare favorably with those for shunts. (C) 2001 by Elsevier Science Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available