Comparison of endoscopic third ventriculostomy with or without choroid plexus cauterization in pediatric hydrocephalus: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Pediatric hydrocephalus is a significant contributor to infant morbidity and mortality, particularly in developing countries. The mainstay of treatment has long been shunt placement for CSF diversion, but recent years have seen the rise of alternative procedures such as endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV), which provides similar efficacy in selected patients. The addition of choroid plexus cauterization (CPC) to ETV has been proposed to increase efficacy, but the evidence of its utility is limited. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of ETV+CPC in comparison to ETV alone for the treatment of pediatric all-cause hydrocephalus. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICRCTN databases were searched from conception through to October 2018 for comparative studies including both ETV+CPC and ETV in a pediatric population. The primary outcome was success rate, defined as no secondary procedure required for CSF diversion; secondary outcomes included time to failure, mortality, and complications. Data were pooled using random-effects models of meta-analysis, and relative risk (RR) was calculated. RESULTS: Five studies were included for final qualitative and quantitative analysis, including 2 prospective and 3 retrospective studies representing a total of 963 patients. Overall, there was no significant difference in success rates between ETV and ETV+CPC (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.88-1.75, p = 0.21). However, a subgroup analysis including the 4 studies focusing on African cohorts demonstrated a significant benefit of ETV+CPC (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.08-1.78, p = 0.01). There were no notable differences in complication rates among studies. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis failed to find an overall benefit to the addition of CPC to ETV; however, a subgroup analysis showed efficacy in sub-Saharan African populations. This points to the need for future randomized clinical trials investigating the efficacy of ETV+CPC versus ETV in varied patient populations and geographic locales.
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 | 0.011 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".