Endoscopic Choroid Plexus Cauterization Versus Ventriculoperitoneal Shunt for Hydranencephaly and Near Hydranencephaly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To prospectively evaluate the results of endoscopic choroid plexus cauterization (ECPC) and ventriculoperitoneal shunts (VPSs) in infants with hydranencephaly or near hydranencephaly. METHODS: We prospectively collected clinical data from all untreated hydranencephalic and near hydranencephalic children from October 2006 to March 2008. All patients treated were randomly divided into 2 groups, ECPC or VPS, and submitted to either endoscopic choroid plexus cauterization or ventriculoperitoneal shunt placement. RESULTS: Seventeen patients were entered into the study. ECPC was completed in 9 patients; the procedure successfully controlled excessive head circumference and signs of increased intracranial pressure in 8 of these patients (88.8%). One endoscopic procedure in a hydranencephalic child failed after 7 months, resulting in VPS placement. Thus, of the 10 patients randomized to ECPC, 8 were treated successfully by ECPC (80%), and 2 went on to have a VPS. There were no complications related to this method of treatment. Seven children were randomized to the VPS group; and of these, 2 patients (28.5%) required shunt revisions during follow-up. There were no complications related to shunt placement. There was no difference in the success rate between patients randomized to ECPC and VPS, but the ECPC was more economical. CONCLUSION: ECPC is an acceptable alternative to VPS for treatment of hydranencephaly and near hydranencephaly. It is a single, definitive, safe, effective, and economical treatment that may avoid the complications of shunting.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".