Flannery Ann Marie, Duhaime Ann-Christine, Tamber Mandeep S, Kemp Joanna
Department of Neurological Surgery, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri
Department of Pediatric Neurosurgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2014 Nov;14 Suppl 1:24-9. doi: 10.3171/2014.7.PEDS14323.
This systematic review was undertaken to answer the following question: Do technical adjuvants such as ventricular endoscopic placement, computer-assisted electromagnetic guidance, or ultrasound guidance improve ventricular shunt function and survival?
The US National Library of Medicine PubMed/MEDLINE database and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were queried using MeSH headings and key words specifically chosen to identify published articles detailing the use of cerebrospinal fluid shunts for the treatment of pediatric hydrocephalus. Articles meeting specific criteria that had been delineated a priori were then examined, and data were abstracted and compiled in evidentiary tables. These data were then analyzed by the Pediatric Hydrocephalus Systematic Review and Evidence-Based Guidelines Task Force to consider evidence-based treatment recommendations.
The search yielded 163 abstracts, which were screened for potential relevance to the application of technical adjuvants in shunt placement. Fourteen articles were selected for full-text review. One additional article was selected during a review of literature citations. Eight of these articles were included in the final recommendations concerning the use of endoscopy, ultrasonography, and electromagnetic image guidance during shunt placement, whereas the remaining articles were excluded due to poor evidence or lack of relevance. The evidence included 1 Class I, 1 Class II, and 6 Class III papers. An evidentiary table of relevant articles was created. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATION: There is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of endoscopic guidance for routine ventricular catheter placement.
Level I, high degree of clinical certainty.
The routine use of ultrasound-assisted catheter placement is an option.
Level III, unclear clinical certainty.
The routine use of computer-assisted electromagnetic (EM) navigation is an option.
Level III, unclear clinical certainty.
进行这项系统评价以回答以下问题:诸如脑室内镜置入、计算机辅助电磁导航或超声引导等技术辅助手段是否能改善脑室分流功能及提高生存率?
使用医学主题词和专门选定的关键词查询美国国立医学图书馆的PubMed/MEDLINE数据库以及Cochrane系统评价数据库,以识别详细描述使用脑脊液分流术治疗小儿脑积水的已发表文章。然后检查符合事先划定的特定标准的文章,并将数据提取并汇编到证据表中。然后由小儿脑积水系统评价和循证指南工作组对这些数据进行分析,以考虑循证治疗建议。
检索得到163篇摘要,对其筛选以确定与技术辅助手段在分流置入中的应用的潜在相关性。选择14篇文章进行全文审查。在文献引用审查期间又选择了1篇文章。其中8篇文章被纳入关于分流置入期间使用内镜检查、超声检查和电磁图像引导的最终建议,而其余文章因证据不足或缺乏相关性而被排除。证据包括1篇I类、1篇II类和6篇III类论文。创建了相关文章的证据表。结论/建议:没有足够的证据推荐在常规脑室导管置入中使用内镜引导。
I级,临床确定性高。
超声辅助导管置入的常规使用是一种选择。
III级,临床确定性不明确。
计算机辅助电磁(EM)导航的常规使用是一种选择。
III级,临床确定性不明确。