4.5 Article

Rate and Risk Factors of Early Ventriculoperitoneal Shunt Revision: A Five-Year Retrospective Analysis of a Referral Center

期刊

WORLD NEUROSURGERY
卷 134, 期 -, 页码 E505-E511

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2019.10.108

关键词

Adult; Complication; Hydrocephalus; Pediatrics; Revision; Ventriculoperitoneal shunt

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Cerebral shunts are the mainstay treatment of hydrocephalus. Because most previous studies have focused on factors related to long-term outcomes of shunt surgery, we aimed to assess the rates and causes of 30-day ventriculoperitoneal shunt (VPS) failure in a single referral center over 5 years in both adult and pediatric patients. METHODS: Patients who underwent VPS surgery from February 2012 to February 2017 in Ghaem Teaching Hospital, Mashhad, Iran were evaluated retrospectively through clinical history, operative reports, imaging studies, and follow-up notes. Data of 12 possible factors related to shunt failure were collected comprising age, gender, household income, level of education, cause of hydrocephalus, causes of revision, type of failure, anatomic site, duration of operation, time of surgery, surgeons' level of expertise, and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score. RESULTS: Among 403 VPS placements, 121 VPS revisions were performed, and 82 eligible patients were included in the study (57.3% male and 42.7% female). The 30-day shunt failure rate was 24.4% among all revisions. Obstruction and malposition were the most common causes of early revisions. Six factors were statistically significant in the univariate analysis. After adjustment in a logistic regression model, 2 factors, namely surgeons' level of expertise (odds ratio, 10.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-98.80) and anatomic site of the shunt (odds ratio, 10.28; 95% confidence interval, 1.21- 87.35) were associated with early shunt revision. CONCLUSIONS: Shunt surgeries performed by junior residents and shunts placed in the frontal site were associated with early shunt failure.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据