Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Asian J Neurosurg 2023; 18(03): 468-475
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1774308
Review Article

Endoscopic Third Ventriculostomy versus Ventriculoperitoneal Shunt in Patients with Obstructive Hydrocephalus: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Eric Pasqualotto 
1   Department of Medicine, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil
,
Pedro Henrique Siedschlag Schmidt
1   Department of Medicine, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil
,
Rafael Oliva Morgado Ferreira
1   Department of Medicine, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil
,
Matheus Pedrotti Chavez
1   Department of Medicine, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil
,
Fernanda Feuerharmel Soares da Silva
2   Department of Pediatrics, Federal University of Santa Catarina; Joana de Gusmão Children's Hospital, Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV) and ventriculoperitoneal shunt (VPS) are surgical methods for treating obstructive hydrocephalus. However, there is still disagreement regarding the most effective technique, in terms of both operative success and postoperative complications. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of these two methods in patients with obstructive hydrocephalus. We performed a systematic search of the PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing ETV and VPS in pediatric or adult patients with obstructive hydrocephalus were included. The outcomes included were operative success, postoperative cerebrospinal fluid leak, postoperative infection, postoperative or intraoperative bleeding, blockage rate, and mortality. The risk ratio (RR) was calculated with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was evaluated with I 2 statistics. We used a fixed-effects model for outcomes with I 2 < 25% and DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model for other conditions. The Cochrane collaboration tool for assessing the risk of bias in randomized trials was used for risk-of-bias assessment. R, version 4.2.1, was used for statistical analyses. Of the 2,353 identified studies, 5 RCTs were included, involving 310 patients with obstructive hydrocephalus, of which 163 underwent ETV. There was a significant difference in favor of ETV for postoperative infection (risk ratio [RR]: 0.11; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.04–0.33; p < 0.0001; I 2 = 0%) and blockage rate (RR: 0.15; 95% CI: 0.03–0.75; p = 0.02; I 2 = 53%). Meanwhile, there was no significant difference between groups for the postoperative or intraoperative bleeding (RR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.17–1.15; p = 0.09; I 2 = 0%), postoperative cerebrospinal fluid leak (RR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.22–1.92; p = 0.44; I 2 = 18%), operative success (RR: 1.18; 95% CI: 0.77–1.82; p = 0.44; I 2 = 84%), and mortality (RR: 0.19; 95% CI: 0.03–1.09; p = 0.06; I 2 = 0%). Three RCTs had some concerns about the risk of bias and one RCT had a high risk of bias due to the process of randomization and selection of reported results. Thus, this meta-analysis of RCTs evaluating ETV compared with VPS demonstrated that although there is no superiority of ETV in terms of operative success, the incidence of complications was significantly higher in patients who underwent VPS. Our results suggest that the use of ETV provides greater benefits for the treatment of obstructive hydrocephalus. However, more RCTs are needed to corroborate the superiority of ETV.

Keywords

endoscopic third ventriculostomy - ventriculoperitoneal shunt - obstructive hydrocephalus

Author Contributions

All the authors contributed to the design, conduct/data collection, analysis, and writing of the manuscript.


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Article published online:
13 September 2023

© 2023. Asian Congress of Neurological Surgeons. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Sekhon MS, Griesdale DE. Neurocritical Care Essentials: A Practical Guide. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2015
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Akins PT, Guppy KH, Axelrod YV, Chakrabarti I, Silverthorn J, Williams AR. The genesis of low pressure hydrocephalus. Neurocrit Care 2011; 15 (03) 461-468
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Ohya J, Chikuda H, Nakatomi H, Sakamoto R, Saito N, Tanaka S. Acute obstructive hydrocephalus complicating decompression surgery of the craniovertebral junction. Asian J Neurosurg 2016; 11 (03) 311-312
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 El-Ghandour NM. Endoscopic third ventriculostomy versus ventriculoperitoneal shunt in the treatment of obstructive hydrocephalus due to posterior fossa tumors in children. Childs Nerv Syst 2011; 27 (01) 117-126
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Navaei AA, Hanaei S, Habibi Z. et al. Controlled trial to compare therapeutic efficacy of endoscopic third ventriculostomy plus choroid plexus cauterization with ventriculoperitoneal shunt in infants with obstructive hydrocephalus. Asian J Neurosurg 2018; 13 (04) 1042-1047
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Lu L, Chen H, Weng S, Xu Y. Endoscopic third ventriculostomy versus ventriculoperitoneal shunt in patients with obstructive hydrocephalus: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. World Neurosurg 2019; 129: 334-340
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM. et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021; 372 (71) n71
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 327 (7414) 557-560
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986; 7 (03) 177-188
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J. et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3 (updated February 2022). Cochrane. 2022 Accessed August 19, 2023 at: www.training.cochrane.org/handbook
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ. et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019; 366: l4898
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Mercuri M, Gafni A. The evolution of GRADE (part 3): a framework built on science or faith?. J Eval Clin Pract 2018; 24 (05) 1223-1231
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Kamikawa S, Inui A, Kobayashi N. et al. Endoscopic treatment of hydrocephalus in children: a controlled study using newly developed Yamadori-type ventriculoscopes. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 2001; 44 (01) 25-30
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Rahman MM, Salam MA, Uddin K. et al. Early surgical outcome of endoscopic third ventriculostomy in the management of obstructive hydrocephalus: a randomized control trial. Asian J Neurosurg 2018; 13 (04) 1001-1004
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Ul Haq N, Ishaq M, Jalal A. Outcome comparison of endoscopic third ventriculostomy versus ventriculoperitoneal shunt in obstructive hydrocephalus. Pak J Med Health Sci 2022; 16 (02) 956-958
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Sakka L, Coll G, Chazal J. Anatomy and physiology of cerebrospinal fluid. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis 2011; 128 (06) 309-316
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Tully HM, Dobyns WB. Infantile hydrocephalus: a review of epidemiology, classification and causes. Eur J Med Genet 2014; 57 (08) 359-368
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Munda M, Spazzapan P, Bosnjak R, Velnar T. Endoscopic third ventriculostomy in obstructive hydrocephalus: a case report and analysis of operative technique. World J Clin Cases 2020; 8 (14) 3039-3049
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Reddy GK, Bollam P, Caldito G. Long-term outcomes of ventriculoperitoneal shunt surgery in patients with hydrocephalus. World Neurosurg 2014; 81 (02) 404-410
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Hellwig D, Grotenhuis JA, Tirakotai W. et al. Endoscopic third ventriculostomy for obstructive hydrocephalus. Neurosurg Rev 2005; 28 (01) 1-34 , discussion 35–38
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Lutz BR, Venkataraman P, Browd SR. New and improved ways to treat hydrocephalus: pursuit of a smart shunt. Surg Neurol Int 2013; 4 (Suppl. 01) S38-S50
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Yadav YR, Bajaj J, Ratre S. et al. Endoscopic third ventriculostomy: a review. Neurol India 2021; 69 (Supplement): S502-S513
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Cataltepe O. Endoscopic third ventriculostomy: indications, surgical technique, and potential problems. Turk Neurosurg 2002; 12: 65-73
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 24 Kestle J, Drake J, Milner R. et al. Long-term follow-up data from the Shunt Design Trial. Pediatr Neurosurg 2000; 33 (05) 230-236
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Browd SR, Ragel BT, Gottfried ON, Kestle JR. Failure of cerebrospinal fluid shunts: part I—obstruction and mechanical failure. Pediatr Neurol 2006; 34 (02) 83-92
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Browd SR, Gottfried ON, Ragel BT, Kestle JR. Failure of cerebrospinal fluid shunts: part II—overdrainage, loculation, and abdominal complications. Pediatr Neurol 2006; 34 (03) 171-176
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Bhatia R, Tahir M, Chandler CL. The management of hydrocephalus in children with posterior fossa tumours: the role of pre-resectional endoscopic third ventriculostomy. Pediatr Neurosurg 2009; 45 (03) 186-191
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Ruggiero C, Cinalli G, Spennato P. et al. Endoscopic third ventriculostomy in the treatment of hydrocephalus in posterior fossa tumors in children. Childs Nerv Syst 2004; 20 (11-12): 828-833
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Texakalidis P, Tora MS, Wetzel JS, Chern JJ. Endoscopic third ventriculostomy versus shunt for pediatric hydrocephalus: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Childs Nerv Syst 2019; 35 (08) 1283-1293
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar