Cargando…

Retrospective comparison of long-term functionality and revision rate of two different shunt valves in pediatric and adult patients

PURPOSE: The most frequent therapy of hydrocephalus is implantation of ventriculoperitoneal shunts for diverting cerebrospinal into the peritoneal cavity. We compared two adjustable valves, proGAV and proGAV 2.0, for complications resulting in revision surgery. METHODS: Four hundred patients undergo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Busse, Lewin-Caspar, Dubinski, Daniel, Gessler, Florian, Dinc, Nazife, Konczalla, Jürgen, Czabanka, Marcus, Senft, Christian, Freiman, Thomas M., Baumgarten, Peter
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Vienna 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10477094/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37528210
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00701-023-05719-y
_version_ 1785101071263203328
author Busse, Lewin-Caspar
Dubinski, Daniel
Gessler, Florian
Dinc, Nazife
Konczalla, Jürgen
Czabanka, Marcus
Senft, Christian
Freiman, Thomas M.
Baumgarten, Peter
author_facet Busse, Lewin-Caspar
Dubinski, Daniel
Gessler, Florian
Dinc, Nazife
Konczalla, Jürgen
Czabanka, Marcus
Senft, Christian
Freiman, Thomas M.
Baumgarten, Peter
author_sort Busse, Lewin-Caspar
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: The most frequent therapy of hydrocephalus is implantation of ventriculoperitoneal shunts for diverting cerebrospinal into the peritoneal cavity. We compared two adjustable valves, proGAV and proGAV 2.0, for complications resulting in revision surgery. METHODS: Four hundred patients undergoing primary shunt implantation between 2014 and 2020 were analyzed for overall revision rate, 1-year revision rate, and revision-free survival observing patient age, sex, etiology of hydrocephalus, implantation site, prior diversion of cerebrospinal fluid, and cause of revision. RESULTS: All data were available of all 400 patients (female/male 208/192). Overall, 99 patients underwent revision surgery after primary implantation. proGAV valve was implanted in 283 patients, and proGAV 2.0 valves were implanted in 117 patients. There was no significant difference between the two shunt valves concerning revision rate (p = 0.8069), 1-year revision rate (p = 0.9077), revision-free survival (p = 0.6921), and overall survival (p = 0.3232). Regarding 1-year revision rate, we observed no significant difference between the two shunt valves in pediatric patients (40.7% vs 27.6%; p = 0.2247). Revision operation had to be performed more frequently in pediatric patients (46.6% vs 24.8%; p = 0.0093) with a significant higher number of total revisions with proGAV than proGAV 2.0 (33 of 59 implanted shunts [55.9%] vs. 8 of 29 implanted shunts [27.6%]; p = 0.0110) most likely due to longer follow-up in the proGAV-group. For this reason, we clearly put emphasis on analyzing results regarding 1-year revision rate. CONCLUSION: According to the target variables we analyzed, aside from lifetime revision rate in pediatric patients, there is no significant difference between the two shunt valves.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10477094
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Springer Vienna
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-104770942023-09-06 Retrospective comparison of long-term functionality and revision rate of two different shunt valves in pediatric and adult patients Busse, Lewin-Caspar Dubinski, Daniel Gessler, Florian Dinc, Nazife Konczalla, Jürgen Czabanka, Marcus Senft, Christian Freiman, Thomas M. Baumgarten, Peter Acta Neurochir (Wien) Original Article PURPOSE: The most frequent therapy of hydrocephalus is implantation of ventriculoperitoneal shunts for diverting cerebrospinal into the peritoneal cavity. We compared two adjustable valves, proGAV and proGAV 2.0, for complications resulting in revision surgery. METHODS: Four hundred patients undergoing primary shunt implantation between 2014 and 2020 were analyzed for overall revision rate, 1-year revision rate, and revision-free survival observing patient age, sex, etiology of hydrocephalus, implantation site, prior diversion of cerebrospinal fluid, and cause of revision. RESULTS: All data were available of all 400 patients (female/male 208/192). Overall, 99 patients underwent revision surgery after primary implantation. proGAV valve was implanted in 283 patients, and proGAV 2.0 valves were implanted in 117 patients. There was no significant difference between the two shunt valves concerning revision rate (p = 0.8069), 1-year revision rate (p = 0.9077), revision-free survival (p = 0.6921), and overall survival (p = 0.3232). Regarding 1-year revision rate, we observed no significant difference between the two shunt valves in pediatric patients (40.7% vs 27.6%; p = 0.2247). Revision operation had to be performed more frequently in pediatric patients (46.6% vs 24.8%; p = 0.0093) with a significant higher number of total revisions with proGAV than proGAV 2.0 (33 of 59 implanted shunts [55.9%] vs. 8 of 29 implanted shunts [27.6%]; p = 0.0110) most likely due to longer follow-up in the proGAV-group. For this reason, we clearly put emphasis on analyzing results regarding 1-year revision rate. CONCLUSION: According to the target variables we analyzed, aside from lifetime revision rate in pediatric patients, there is no significant difference between the two shunt valves. Springer Vienna 2023-08-02 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC10477094/ /pubmed/37528210 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00701-023-05719-y Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Article
Busse, Lewin-Caspar
Dubinski, Daniel
Gessler, Florian
Dinc, Nazife
Konczalla, Jürgen
Czabanka, Marcus
Senft, Christian
Freiman, Thomas M.
Baumgarten, Peter
Retrospective comparison of long-term functionality and revision rate of two different shunt valves in pediatric and adult patients
title Retrospective comparison of long-term functionality and revision rate of two different shunt valves in pediatric and adult patients
title_full Retrospective comparison of long-term functionality and revision rate of two different shunt valves in pediatric and adult patients
title_fullStr Retrospective comparison of long-term functionality and revision rate of two different shunt valves in pediatric and adult patients
title_full_unstemmed Retrospective comparison of long-term functionality and revision rate of two different shunt valves in pediatric and adult patients
title_short Retrospective comparison of long-term functionality and revision rate of two different shunt valves in pediatric and adult patients
title_sort retrospective comparison of long-term functionality and revision rate of two different shunt valves in pediatric and adult patients
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10477094/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37528210
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00701-023-05719-y
work_keys_str_mv AT busselewincaspar retrospectivecomparisonoflongtermfunctionalityandrevisionrateoftwodifferentshuntvalvesinpediatricandadultpatients
AT dubinskidaniel retrospectivecomparisonoflongtermfunctionalityandrevisionrateoftwodifferentshuntvalvesinpediatricandadultpatients
AT gesslerflorian retrospectivecomparisonoflongtermfunctionalityandrevisionrateoftwodifferentshuntvalvesinpediatricandadultpatients
AT dincnazife retrospectivecomparisonoflongtermfunctionalityandrevisionrateoftwodifferentshuntvalvesinpediatricandadultpatients
AT konczallajurgen retrospectivecomparisonoflongtermfunctionalityandrevisionrateoftwodifferentshuntvalvesinpediatricandadultpatients
AT czabankamarcus retrospectivecomparisonoflongtermfunctionalityandrevisionrateoftwodifferentshuntvalvesinpediatricandadultpatients
AT senftchristian retrospectivecomparisonoflongtermfunctionalityandrevisionrateoftwodifferentshuntvalvesinpediatricandadultpatients
AT freimanthomasm retrospectivecomparisonoflongtermfunctionalityandrevisionrateoftwodifferentshuntvalvesinpediatricandadultpatients
AT baumgartenpeter retrospectivecomparisonoflongtermfunctionalityandrevisionrateoftwodifferentshuntvalvesinpediatricandadultpatients