Bue Enrico Lo, Morello Alberto, Bellomo Jacopo, Bradaschia Leonardo, Lacatena Filippo, Colonna Stefano, Fiumefreddo Alessandro, Stieglitz Lennart, Regli Luca, Lanotte Michele Maria, Garbossa Diego, Cofano Fabio
Neurosurgery Unit, Department of Neuroscience "Rita Levi Montalcini", AOU Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, University Hospital, University of Turin, 10124, Turin, Italy.
Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Sci Rep. 2024 Aug 9;14(1):18460. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-62366-8.
Hydrocephalus is a commonly encountered pathology in the neurosurgical practice. Since the first permanent ventriculo-subarachnoid-subgaleal shunt described by Mikulicz in 1893, there were multiple attempts to find solutions for draining the excess production/less reabsorption of the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) from the brain. Nowadays, the most common technique is the ventriculoperitoneal shunt (VPS), whereas the ventriculoatrial shunt (VAS) is applied only in some rare conditions. To date there are still no specific guidelines or strong evidence in literature that guide the surgeon in the choice between the two methods, and the decision usually relies on the confidence and expertise of the surgeon. Considering the lack of established recommendations, this systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of these two shunting techniques. This systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA protocol (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). No chronological limits of study publications were included. Prospective and retrospective clinical studies, and reports of case series with at least five patients per group and reporting data on comparison between VAS and VPS techniques were eligible for inclusion. Nine studies reporting 3197 patients meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria were identified and included in the quantitative synthesis. The risk of shunt dysfunction/obstruction was significantly lower in the VAS group [odds ratio (OR) 0.49, 95%-CI 0.34-0.70, I 0%]. The risk of infection was not significantly different between the two groups (OR 1.02, 95%-CI 0.59-1.74, I 0%). The risk of revision was not significantly different between the two groups; however, the heterogeneity between the studies was significant (OR 0.73, 95%-CI 0.36-1.49, I 91%). Additionally, the risk of death was not significantly different between the two groups; however, the heterogeneity between the studies was high (OR 1.93, 95%-CI 0.81-4.62, I 64%). VAS remains a safe surgical alternative for hydrocephalus. The results of this study highlight a lower risk of shunt dysfunction/obstruction variable in the VAS group, with no significant statistical differences regarding the occurrence of at least one infection-related complication. In consequence, the choice between these two techniques must be tailored to the specific characteristics of the patient.Protocol Registration: The review protocol was registered and published in Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) ( www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO ) website with registration number: CRD42023479365.
脑积水是神经外科实践中常见的一种病症。自1893年米库利奇描述首例永久性脑室 - 蛛网膜下腔 - 帽状腱膜下分流术以来,人们多次尝试寻找解决从大脑引流过多产生/吸收减少的脑脊液(CSF)的方法。如今,最常用的技术是脑室腹腔分流术(VPS),而脑室心房分流术(VAS)仅在某些罕见情况下应用。迄今为止,文献中仍没有具体的指南或有力证据指导外科医生在这两种方法之间做出选择,决策通常依赖于外科医生的信心和专业知识。鉴于缺乏既定的建议,本系统评价和荟萃分析旨在评估这两种分流技术的有效性和安全性。本系统评价按照PRISMA方案(系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目)进行。研究出版物不设时间限制。前瞻性和回顾性临床研究以及每组至少有五名患者且报告VAS和VPS技术比较数据的病例系列报告均符合纳入标准。共确定了9项报告3197例符合纳入和排除标准患者的研究,并纳入定量合成分析。VAS组分流功能障碍/阻塞的风险显著更低[优势比(OR)0.49,95%置信区间(CI)0.34 - 0.70,I² 0%]。两组之间感染风险无显著差异(OR 1.02,95%CI 0.59 - 1.74,I² 0%)。两组之间翻修风险无显著差异;然而,研究之间的异质性显著(OR 0.73,95%CI 0.36 - 1.49,I² 91%)。此外,两组之间死亡风险无显著差异;然而,研究之间的异质性较高(OR 1.93,95%CI 0.81 - .62,I² 64%)。VAS仍然是治疗脑积水的一种安全的手术选择。本研究结果突出了VAS组分流功能障碍/阻塞风险较低,在至少一种感染相关并发症的发生方面无显著统计学差异。因此,这两种技术之间的选择必须根据患者的具体特征进行调整。方案注册:该评价方案已在系统评价前瞻性注册库(PROSPERO)(www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO)网站注册并发表,注册号:CRD42023479365。