Cargando…

Infant hydrocephalus: what valve first?

PURPOSE: To review the use of different valve types in infants with hydrocephalus, in doing so, determining whether an optimal valve choice exists for this patient cohort. METHODS: We conducted (1) a literature review for all studies describing valve types used (programmable vs. non-programmable, va...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hall, Benjamin J., Gillespie, Conor S., Sunderland, Geraint J., Conroy, Elizabeth J., Hennigan, Dawn, Jenkinson, Michael D., Pettorini, Benedetta, Mallucci, Conor
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8578053/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34402954
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00381-021-05326-1
_version_ 1784596193256407040
author Hall, Benjamin J.
Gillespie, Conor S.
Sunderland, Geraint J.
Conroy, Elizabeth J.
Hennigan, Dawn
Jenkinson, Michael D.
Pettorini, Benedetta
Mallucci, Conor
author_facet Hall, Benjamin J.
Gillespie, Conor S.
Sunderland, Geraint J.
Conroy, Elizabeth J.
Hennigan, Dawn
Jenkinson, Michael D.
Pettorini, Benedetta
Mallucci, Conor
author_sort Hall, Benjamin J.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To review the use of different valve types in infants with hydrocephalus, in doing so, determining whether an optimal valve choice exists for this patient cohort. METHODS: We conducted (1) a literature review for all studies describing valve types used (programmable vs. non-programmable, valve size, pressure) in infants (≤ 2 years) with hydrocephalus, (2) a review of data from the pivotal BASICS trial for infant patients and (3) a separate, institutional cohort study from Alder Hey Children’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. The primary outcome was any revision not due to infection. RESULTS: The search identified 19 studies that were included in the review. Most did not identify a superior valve choice between programmable and non-programmable, small compared to ultra-small, and differential pressure compared to flow-regulating valves. Five studies investigated a single-valve type without a comparator group. The BASICS data identified 391 infants, with no statistically significant difference between gravitational and programmable subgroups. The institutional data from our tertiary referral centre did not reveal any significant difference in failure rate between valve subtypes. CONCLUSION: Our review highlights the challenges of valve selection in infant hydrocephalus, reiterating that the concept of an optimal valve choice in this group remains a controversial one. While the infant-hydrocephalic population is at high risk of valve failure, heterogeneity and a lack of direct comparison between valves in the literature limit our ability to draw meaningful conclusions. Data that does exist suggests at present that there is no difference in non-infective failure rate are increasing in number, with the British valve subtypes in infant hydrocephalus, supported by both the randomised trial and institutional data in this study. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00381-021-05326-1.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8578053
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-85780532021-11-15 Infant hydrocephalus: what valve first? Hall, Benjamin J. Gillespie, Conor S. Sunderland, Geraint J. Conroy, Elizabeth J. Hennigan, Dawn Jenkinson, Michael D. Pettorini, Benedetta Mallucci, Conor Childs Nerv Syst Annual Issue Paper PURPOSE: To review the use of different valve types in infants with hydrocephalus, in doing so, determining whether an optimal valve choice exists for this patient cohort. METHODS: We conducted (1) a literature review for all studies describing valve types used (programmable vs. non-programmable, valve size, pressure) in infants (≤ 2 years) with hydrocephalus, (2) a review of data from the pivotal BASICS trial for infant patients and (3) a separate, institutional cohort study from Alder Hey Children’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. The primary outcome was any revision not due to infection. RESULTS: The search identified 19 studies that were included in the review. Most did not identify a superior valve choice between programmable and non-programmable, small compared to ultra-small, and differential pressure compared to flow-regulating valves. Five studies investigated a single-valve type without a comparator group. The BASICS data identified 391 infants, with no statistically significant difference between gravitational and programmable subgroups. The institutional data from our tertiary referral centre did not reveal any significant difference in failure rate between valve subtypes. CONCLUSION: Our review highlights the challenges of valve selection in infant hydrocephalus, reiterating that the concept of an optimal valve choice in this group remains a controversial one. While the infant-hydrocephalic population is at high risk of valve failure, heterogeneity and a lack of direct comparison between valves in the literature limit our ability to draw meaningful conclusions. Data that does exist suggests at present that there is no difference in non-infective failure rate are increasing in number, with the British valve subtypes in infant hydrocephalus, supported by both the randomised trial and institutional data in this study. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00381-021-05326-1. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021-08-17 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8578053/ /pubmed/34402954 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00381-021-05326-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis 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 Annual Issue Paper
Hall, Benjamin J.
Gillespie, Conor S.
Sunderland, Geraint J.
Conroy, Elizabeth J.
Hennigan, Dawn
Jenkinson, Michael D.
Pettorini, Benedetta
Mallucci, Conor
Infant hydrocephalus: what valve first?
title Infant hydrocephalus: what valve first?
title_full Infant hydrocephalus: what valve first?
title_fullStr Infant hydrocephalus: what valve first?
title_full_unstemmed Infant hydrocephalus: what valve first?
title_short Infant hydrocephalus: what valve first?
title_sort infant hydrocephalus: what valve first?
topic Annual Issue Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8578053/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34402954
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00381-021-05326-1
work_keys_str_mv AT hallbenjaminj infanthydrocephaluswhatvalvefirst
AT gillespieconors infanthydrocephaluswhatvalvefirst
AT sunderlandgeraintj infanthydrocephaluswhatvalvefirst
AT conroyelizabethj infanthydrocephaluswhatvalvefirst
AT hennigandawn infanthydrocephaluswhatvalvefirst
AT jenkinsonmichaeld infanthydrocephaluswhatvalvefirst
AT pettorinibenedetta infanthydrocephaluswhatvalvefirst
AT mallucciconor infanthydrocephaluswhatvalvefirst