rss
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2009;80:1248-1253 doi:10.1136/jnnp.2007.141416
  • Research paper

Perioperative risk factors for short term shunt revisions in adult hydrocephalus patients

  1. D Farahmand,
  2. H Hilmarsson,
  3. M Högfeldt,
  4. M Tisell
  1. Hydrocephalus Research Unit, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Sahlgrenska Academy, Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden
  1. Correspondence to D Farahmand, Department of Neurosurgery, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, SE 413 45 Göteborg, Sweden; dan.farahmand{at}vgregion.se
  • Received 2 December 2007
  • Revised 4 December 2008
  • Accepted 9 January 2009
  • Published Online First 16 March 2009

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to prospectively study perioperative variables associated with revision after shunt surgery for adult hydrocephalus.

Methods: Two protocols were designed to prospectively study perioperative risk factors during shunt insertion. Over 10 years (1995–2004), 450 adult (age >16 years) patients with first time shunt implantations were studied. Patients who had been treated with endoscopic third ventriculostomy were excluded from the study. All shunts were designated as meeting one of two end points: (1) shunt failure requiring revision within 6 months or (2) no shunt failure within 6 months. Shunt revision within 6 months postoperatively was considered to be related to the shunting procedure.

Results: 85 shunt revisions were performed within 6 months after insertion. During the study period the revision rate declined from 21.1% to 9.1%. Revision rates were the same for ventriculoperitoneal (n = 411) and ventriculoatrial (n = 39) shunts. The predictive values of variables related to the patient, operating room, surgical technique and shunt system were analysed to determine shunt outcome.

Conclusions: Right frontal placement of the ventricular catheter was associated with the lowest rate of revisions. Adjustable valves were associated with a lower risk for shunt revision. Shunt revision rates did not differ between ventriculoperitoneal and ventriculoatrial shunts.

Footnotes

  • See Editorial Commentary, p 1185

  • Funding This study was supported by Göteborg Medical Society, Edit Jacobsson Foundation and John and Brit Wennerström Foundation.

  • Competing interests None.

  • Ethics approval The study was approved by The National Board of Health and Welfare (Sweden).

  • Provenance and Peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

This Article

  1. All Versions of this Article:
    1. jnnp.2007.141416v1
    2. 80/11/1248 most recent

Services

  1. Request permissions

Responses

  1. Submit a response
  2. No responses published

Social bookmarking

Latest from Practical Neurology

Latest from Practical Neurology

Register for free content


Free sample
This recent issue is free to all users to allow everyone the opportunity to see the full scope and typical content of JNNP.
View free sample issue >>

Free archive
The full back archive is now available for JNNP. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006, back to volume 1 issue 1.
Register to access the free archive >>

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.

  • BMJ Careers - Latest Neurology and Neurosurgery jobs

    Latest neurology and neurosurgery jobs