Ziebell Morten, Wetterslev Jørn, Tisell Magnus, Gluud Christian, Juhler Marianne
Department of Neurosurgery, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 May 31;2013(5):CD009706. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009706.pub2.
Since 1965 many ventriculo-peritoneal shunt systems have been inserted worldwide to treat hydrocephalus. The most frequent indication in adults is normal pressure hydrocephalus (NPH), a condition that can be difficult to diagnose precisely. Surgical intervention with flow-regulated and differential pressure-regulated ventriculo-peritoneal shunts remains controversial. Knowledge about the benefits and harms of these interventions is limited.
The objective of this review is to summarize the evidence on benefits and harms of flow-regulated versus differential pressure-regulated shunt valves for adult patients with NPH, based on reported findings of randomised clinical trials.
The ALOIS (www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/alois), the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group Specialized Register; MEDLINE (from 1950) (Ovid SP); EMBASE (from 1980) (Ovid SP); CINAHL (from 1980) (EBSCOhost); PsycINFO (from 1806) (Ovid SP); LILACS (from 1982 ) (BIREME); ClinicalTrials.gov; Umin Japan Trial Register; WHO portal;The Cochrane Library's Central Register of Controlled trials (CENTRAL); ISI Web of Knowledge Conference Proceedings; Index to Theses; and Australasian Digital Theses were searched until May 16, 2012.The search terms used were NPH, "normal pressure hydrocephalus," iNPH, idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus, sNPH, and "secondary normal pressure hydrocephalus."
We planned to include randomised clinical trials comparing flow-regulated versus differential pressure-regulated shunt valves.
Two authors with expert knowledge within the field independently reviewed studies for eligibility, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data.
No randomised clinical trials comparing flow-regulated versus differential pressure-regulated shunt valves were found.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence from randomised clinical trials indicates that flow-regulated and differential pressure-regulated shunt valves differ with regard to clinical outcome, shunt failure, or intervention risks. Randomised clinical trials are needed that take into account the large number of VP shunts implanted each year in patients with NPH.
自1965年以来,全球已植入许多脑室-腹腔分流系统来治疗脑积水。成人中最常见的适应症是正常压力脑积水(NPH),这种病症可能难以精确诊断。采用流量调节和压差调节的脑室-腹腔分流术进行手术干预仍存在争议。关于这些干预措施的益处和危害的知识有限。
本综述的目的是根据随机临床试验的报告结果,总结流量调节型与压差调节型分流阀对成年NPH患者的益处和危害的证据。
检索了ALOIS(www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/alois)、Cochrane痴呆与认知改善小组专业注册库;MEDLINE(1950年起)(Ovid SP);EMBASE(1980年起)(Ovid SP);CINAHL(1980年起)(EBSCOhost);PsycINFO(1806年起)(Ovid SP);LILACS(1982年起)(BIREME);ClinicalTrials.gov;日本Umin试验注册库;世界卫生组织门户网站;Cochrane图书馆的对照试验中央注册库(CENTRAL);ISI知识网络会议论文集;论文索引;以及澳大利亚数字论文,检索截至2012年5月16日。使用的检索词为NPH、“正常压力脑积水”、iNPH、特发性正常压力脑积水、sNPH和“继发性正常压力脑积水”。
我们计划纳入比较流量调节型与压差调节型分流阀的随机临床试验。
两位该领域的专家作者独立审查研究的入选资格、评估偏倚风险并提取数据。
未找到比较流量调节型与压差调节型分流阀的随机临床试验。
随机临床试验没有证据表明流量调节型和压差调节型分流阀在临床结果、分流失败或干预风险方面存在差异。需要开展随机临床试验,考虑到每年为NPH患者植入的大量脑室-腹腔分流术。