4.1 Article

Quality of life in obstructive hydrocephalus: endoscopic third ventriculostomy compared to cerebrospinal fluid shunt

期刊

CHILDS NERVOUS SYSTEM
卷 26, 期 1, 页码 75-79

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00381-009-0983-7

关键词

Hydrocephalus; Pediatric; Health outcome; Quality of life

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the current literature, there are essentially no comparisons of quality of life (QOL) outcome after endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV) and shunt in childhood hydrocephalus. Our objective was to compare QOL in children with obstructive hydrocephalus, treated with either ETV or shunt. A cross-sectional survey was conducted at SickKids, Toronto of children between ages five and 18 years, with obstructive hydrocephalus due to aqueductal obstruction and no other brain abnormalities. Measures of QOL were the Hydrocephalus Outcome Questionnaire and the Health Utilities Index Mark 3. A subset of patients was given the Wechsler Intelligence Scales for Children (WISC-IV). A total of 47 of 59 (80%) eligible patients participated (24 had ETV as primary treatment, 23 had shunt as primary treatment), with a mean age of 12.1 years (standard deviation 3.9) at assessment. The ETV group was older at initial surgery (p < 0.001) and had larger ventricle size at last follow-up (p = 0.047). In all QOL measures, there were no significant differences between the ETV group and shunt group (all p a parts per thousand yenaEuro parts per thousand 0.09). Treatment failure, hydrocephalus complications, and the presence of a functioning ETV at assessment were not associated with QOL differences. Among the 11 children (six ETV, five shunt) who were given the WISC-IV, there were no significant differences between the scores of the ETV group and shunt group (all p a parts per thousand yenaEuro parts per thousand 0.11). This is the first study to provide a meaningful comparison of QOL after ETV and shunt in children. These preliminary results suggest that there is no obvious difference in QOL after ETV and shunt.

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

4.1
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