Kumar Naveen, Al-Faiadh Wisam, Tailor Jignesh, Mallucci Conor, Chandler Chris, Bassi Sanj, Pettorini Benedetta, Zebian Bassel
a Faculty of Medicine , King's College London , London , UK.
b Department of Neurosurgery , King's College Hospital , Denmark Hill , London , UK.
Br J Neurosurg. 2017 Jun;31(3):307-311. doi: 10.1080/02688697.2016.1226260. Epub 2016 Sep 30.
The management of neonatal post-haemorrhagic hydrocephalus (nPHH) varies considerably between centres and even between neurosurgeons in the same centre. We performed a nationwide survey to evaluate current practice in the UK and reviewed the evidence for each intervention.
An online semi-structured questionnaire was emailed to all units registered on the British Paediatric Neurosurgery Group Mailing List. The survey consisted of 18 questions designed to establish the status quo in the management of nPHH, including preferred temporising procedure, factors guiding the timing of intervention and willingness to participate in a prospective study.
A total of 24 consultants responded to the survey. Ventricular access device (VAD), trans-fontanelle tap, ventriculosubgaleal shunt (VSGS) and lumbar puncture (LP) were used by 33, 25, 17 and 17%, respectively, as the first temporising measure. Almost all reported that the timing of this intervention was guided by increasing head circumference and tense fontanelle. If the first temporising procedure fails, VAD, external ventricular drainage (EVD), trans-fontanelle tap, VSGS and other procedures (including ventriculoperitoneal (VP) shunting and endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV)) were performed by 42, 17, 13, 8 and 21%, respectively. Almost all respondents reported that VP shunting would be their preferred method of definitive cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) diversion. Almost all responded that they would be willing to participate in a prospective study in the future to determine best practice.
As expected there was a significant heterogeneity between respondents in the initial management of nPHH in the UK. VAD was the most popular first and second choice temporising measure. On reviewing the literature, it is clear that more work still needs to be done to establish which temporising measure is best. There is willingness in the UK to participate in a study to help determine this.
新生儿出血后脑积水(nPHH)的治疗在不同中心之间差异很大,甚至在同一中心的神经外科医生之间也存在差异。我们开展了一项全国性调查,以评估英国目前的治疗实践,并对每种干预措施的证据进行了回顾。
通过电子邮件向英国小儿神经外科学组邮件列表中注册的所有单位发送了一份在线半结构化问卷。该调查包含18个问题,旨在确定nPHH治疗的现状,包括首选的临时治疗方法、指导干预时机的因素以及参与前瞻性研究的意愿。
共有24位顾问回复了调查。分别有33%、25%、17%和17%的人将脑室引流装置(VAD)、经囟门穿刺、脑室-帽状腱膜下分流术(VSGS)和腰椎穿刺(LP)作为首选的临时治疗措施。几乎所有人都报告说,这种干预的时机是由头围增加和囟门紧张来指导的。如果第一种临时治疗方法失败,分别有42%、17%、13%、8%和21%的人会进行VAD、外部脑室引流(EVD)、经囟门穿刺、VSGS和其他手术(包括脑室-腹腔(VP)分流术和内镜下第三脑室造瘘术(ETV))。几乎所有受访者都报告说,VP分流术将是他们首选的确定性脑脊液(CSF)分流方法。几乎所有人都表示,他们愿意在未来参与一项前瞻性研究,以确定最佳治疗方案。
正如预期的那样,英国nPHH初始治疗的受访者之间存在显著异质性。VAD是最受欢迎的第一和第二选择的临时治疗措施。回顾文献可以清楚地看出,仍需要做更多工作来确定哪种临时治疗措施是最佳的。英国有意愿参与一项研究来帮助确定这一点。