MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2952293535 · doi:10.3171/2019.3.peds18532

Predictors of success for combined endoscopic third ventriculostomy and choroid plexus cauterization in a North American setting: a Hydrocephalus Clinical Research Network study

2019· article· en· W2952293535 on OpenAlexaff
Jay Riva-Cambrin, John R. W. Kestle, Curtis J. Rozzelle, Robert P. Naftel, Jessica S. Alvey, Ron Reeder, Richard Holubkov, Samuel R. Browd, D. Douglas Cochrane, David D. Limbrick, Chevis N. Shannon, Tamara D. Simon, Mandeep S. Tamber, John C. Wellons, William E. Whitehead, Abhaya V. Kulkarni

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurosurgery Pediatrics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalus
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoSickKids FoundationAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
FundersHydrocephalus AssociationPatient-Centered Outcomes Research InstituteH2020 European Research CouncilNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeGerber Foundation
KeywordsCauterizationEndoscopic third ventriculostomyHydrocephalusChoroid plexusMedicineVentriculostomySurgeryThird ventricleAnatomyInternal medicineCentral nervous system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic third ventriculostomy combined with choroid plexus cauterization (ETV+CPC) has been adopted by many pediatric neurosurgeons as an alternative to placing shunts in infants with hydrocephalus. However, reported success rates have been highly variable, which may be secondary to patient selection, operative technique, and/or surgeon training. The objective of this prospective multicenter cohort study was to identify independent patient selection, operative technique, or surgical training predictors of ETV+CPC success in infants. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study nested within the Hydrocephalus Clinical Research Network's (HCRN) Core Data Project (registry). All infants under the age of 2 years who underwent a first ETV+CPC between June 2006 and March 2015 from 8 HCRN centers were included. Each patient had a minimum of 6 months of follow-up unless censored by an ETV+CPC failure. Patient and operative risk factors of failure were examined, as well as formal ETV+CPC training, which was defined as traveling to and working with the experienced surgeons at CURE Children's Hospital of Uganda. ETV+CPC failure was defined as the need for repeat ETV, shunting, or death. RESULTS: The study contained 191 patients with a primary ETV+CPC conducted by 17 pediatric neurosurgeons within the HCRN. Infants under 6 months corrected age at the time of ETV+CPC represented 79% of the cohort. Myelomeningocele (26%), intraventricular hemorrhage associated with prematurity (24%), and aqueductal stenosis (17%) were the most common etiologies. A total of 115 (60%) of the ETV+CPCs were conducted by surgeons after formal training. Overall, ETV+CPC was successful in 48%, 46%, and 45% of infants at 6 months, 1 year, and 18 months, respectively. Young age (< 1 month) (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.9, 95% CI 1.0-3.6) and an etiology of post-intraventricular hemorrhage secondary to prematurity (aHR 2.0, 95% CI 1.1-3.6) were the only two independent predictors of ETV+CPC failure. Specific subgroups of ages within etiology categories were identified as having higher ETV+CPC success rates. Although training led to more frequent use of the flexible scope (p < 0.001) and higher rates of complete (> 90%) CPC (p < 0.001), training itself was not independently associated (aHR 1.1, 95% CI 0.7-1.8; p = 0.63) with ETV+CPC success. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest prospective multicenter North American study to date examining ETV+CPC. Formal ETV+CPC training was not found to be associated with improved procedure outcomes. Specific subgroups of ages within specific hydrocephalus etiologies were identified that may preferentially benefit from ETV+CPC.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.819

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Citations55
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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