Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.
Department of Neurological Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
World Neurosurg. 2014 Feb;81(2):397-403. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2013.01.039. Epub 2013 Jan 12.
Despite the frequency with which ventriculoperitoneal shunts are placed, ventricular catheter revision rates remains as high as 30%-40% at 1 year. Many neurosurgeons place ventricular catheters "blindly" depending on anatomical landmarks and personal experience. To determine whether intraoperative ultrasonography is beneficial for ventricular catheter placement, we performed a historical cohort study comparing shunts placed with intraoperative ultrasound (US) guidance to those placed blindly.
We reviewed all shunts placed by the Department of Neurosurgery at the University of Virginia from January 2005 to January 2007. During that time 211 patients underwent 242 shunts, with US use determined by surgeon's preference. Ninety-two shunts were placed by the use of US guidance, and 150 were placed without US. Adults received 176 shunts, 56 with US. Children received 66 shunts, 36 with US. Mean follow-up was 21.6 months. The primary end points examined were shunt revision, ventricular catheter revision (VCR), and acute VCR (revision within 1 week for an improperly-placed catheter).
The use of US was associated with a statistically significant decrease in shunt revisions (odds ratio 0.492; 95% confidence interval 0.253-0.958). Of the shunts placed with US guidance, 21.7% required revision, compared with 29.3% without US. VCRs and acute VCRs occurred in 9.8% and 2.2%, respectively, for US shunts, compared with 14% and 5.3% without US. Pediatric revision rates were 30.6% with US versus 53.3% without, whereas adult rates were 16.1% and 23.3%, respectively. The benefit of US was more profound for occipital shunts.
The use of US for the placement of permanent cerebrospinal fluid shunt catheters is associated with a decreased risk of shunt revision.
尽管脑室-腹腔分流术的应用频率很高,但在术后 1 年内,脑室导管的返修率仍高达 30%-40%。许多神经外科医生根据解剖学标志和个人经验“盲目”放置脑室导管。为了确定术中超声是否有利于脑室导管的放置,我们进行了一项历史队列研究,比较了在术中超声(US)引导下放置的分流术和盲目放置的分流术。
我们回顾了 2005 年 1 月至 2007 年 1 月期间弗吉尼亚大学神经外科部门所进行的所有分流术。在此期间,211 名患者接受了 242 次分流术,US 的使用由外科医生的偏好决定。92 例分流术在 US 引导下进行,150 例无 US 引导。成人接受了 176 例分流术,其中 56 例使用了 US。儿童接受了 66 例分流术,其中 36 例使用了 US。平均随访时间为 21.6 个月。主要终点是分流术的修订、脑室导管的修订(VCR)和急性 VCR(因导管放置不当而在 1 周内进行的修订)。
US 的使用与分流术修订的统计学显著降低相关(优势比 0.492;95%置信区间 0.253-0.958)。在使用 US 引导的分流术中,21.7%需要修订,而没有 US 的分流术则为 29.3%。使用 US 的 VCR 和急性 VCR 分别为 9.8%和 2.2%,而没有 US 的 VCR 和急性 VCR 分别为 14%和 5.3%。US 组的儿科修订率为 30.6%,无 US 组为 53.3%,而成人组的修订率分别为 16.1%和 23.3%。US 的益处对于枕部分流术更为显著。
使用 US 放置永久性脑脊液分流导管与降低分流术修订风险相关。