MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1502690518 · doi:10.3171/2012.9.peds1236

Shunt survival after failed endoscopic treatment of hydrocephalus

2012· article· en· W1502690518 on OpenAlexaff
Benjamin C. Warf, Salman Bhai, Abhaya V. Kulkarni, John Mugamba

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurosurgery Pediatrics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalus
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEndoscopic third ventriculostomyHydrocephalusShunt (medical)SurgeryInterquartile rangeProportional hazards modelCauterizationLog-rank testEndoscopySurvival analysisVentriculostomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECT: It is not known whether previous endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV) affects the risk of shunt failure. Different epochs of hydrocephalus treatment at the CURE Children's Hospital of Uganda (CCHU)-initially placing CSF shunts in all patients, then attempting ETV in all patients, and finally attempting ETV combined with choroid plexus cauterization (CPC) in all patients-provided the opportunity to assess whether prior endoscopic surgery affected shunt survival. METHODS: With appropriate institutional approvals, the authors reviewed the CCHU clinical database to identify 2329 patients treated for hydrocephalus from December 2000 to May 2007. Initial ventriculoperitoneal (VP) shunt placement was performed in 900 patients under one of three circumstances: 1) primary nonselective VP shunt placement with no endoscopy (255 patients); 2) VP shunt placement at the time of abandoned ETV attempt (with or without CPC) (370 patients); 3) VP shunt placement subsequent to a completed but failed ETV (with or without CPC) (275 patients). We analyzed time to shunt failure using the Kaplan-Meier method to construct survival curves, Cox proportional hazards regression modeling, and risk-adjusted analyses to account for possible confounding differences among these groups. RESULTS: Shunt failure occurred in 299 patients, and the mean duration of follow-up for the remaining 601 was 28.7 months (median 18.8, interquartile range 4.1-46.3). There was no significant difference in operative mortality (p = 0.07 by log-rank and p = 0.14 by Cox regression adjusted for age and hydrocephalus etiology) or shunt infection (p = 0.94, log-rank) among the 3 groups. There was no difference in shunt survival between patients treated with primary shunt placement and those who underwent shunt placement at the time of an abandoned ETV attempt (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.14, 95% CI 0.86-1.51, p = 0.35). Those who underwent shunt placement after a completed but failed ETV (with or without CPC) had a lower risk of shunt failure (p = 0.008, log-rank), with a hazard ratio (adjusted for age at shunting and etiology) of 0.72 (95% CI 0.53-0.98), p = 0.03, compared with those who underwent primary shunt placement without endoscopy; but this was observed only in patients with postinfectious hydrocephalus (PIH) (adjusted HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36-0.85, p = 0.007), and no effect was apparent for hydrocephalus of noninfectious etiologies (adjusted HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.64-1.50, p = 0.92). Improved shunt survival after failed ETV in the PIH group may be an artifact of selection arising from the inherent heterogeneity of ventricular damage within that group, or a consequence of the timing of shunt placement. The anticipated benefit of CPC in preventing future ventricular catheter obstruction was not observed. CONCLUSIONS: A paradigm for infant hydrocephalus involving intention to treat by ETV with or without CPC had no adverse effect on mortality or on subsequent shunt survival or infection risk. This study failed to demonstrate a positive effect of prior ETV or CPC on shunt survival.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.187
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations47
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurosurgery PediatricsSame topicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalusFrench-language works237,207