Laparoscopic Revision of Ventriculoperitoneal Shunts in Pediatric Patients May Result in Fewer Subsequent Peritoneal Revisions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Ventriculoperitoneal shunts (VPSs) are the mainstay of treatment of hydrocephalus but frequently need revision. We sought to directly compare the impact of laparoscopic versus open peritoneal shunt revision on the need for subsequent VPS revisions in pediatric patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospectively maintained, externally validated database of pediatric patients who underwent a first peritoneal VPS revision at a single center between 2008 and 2016 was reviewed. Outcomes, including subsequent revisions, shunt infections, operative time, and hospital stay between open and laparoscopic groups, were compared. RESULTS: A total of 148 patients underwent a first peritoneal VPS revision during the time period-40 laparoscopically and 108 open-with no significant difference in age or gender between the groups. Operative time, length of stay after shunt revision, and shunt infection rates did not vary between laparoscopic versus open revisions. There was no significant difference between need for subsequent overall (peritoneal or ventricular) shunt revisions in the laparoscopic (20%) versus the open group (34%), P = .07. However, there were significantly fewer frequent peritoneal revisions in the laparoscopic group (3% versus 15%, P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: This first cohort analysis of laparoscopic versus open VPS revision in pediatric patients suggests that laparoscopic peritoneal VPS revision may reduce the rate of subsequent peritoneal revisions without increasing shunt infections or operative time in pediatric patients.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".