Intraoperative Fiber-Optic Endoscopy for Ventricular Catheter Insertion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Ventricular catheter placement is a common neurosurgical procedure often resulting in inaccurate intraventricular positioning. We conducted a comparison of the accuracy of endoscopic and conventional ventricular catheter placement in adults. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of data was performed on 37 consecutive patients undergoing ventriculo-peritoneal shunt (VPS) insertion with endoscopy and 40 randomly selected, unmatched patients undergoing VPS insertion without endoscopy, for the treatment of hydrocephalus of varied etiology. A grading system for catheter tip position was developed consisting of five intraventricular zones, V1 -V5, and three intraparenchymal zones, A, B, C. Zones V1 for the frontal approaches and V1 or V2 for the occipital approaches were the optimal catheter tip locations. Postoperative scans of each patient were used to grade the accuracy of ventricular catheter placement. RESULTS: Seventy-six percent of all endoscopic ventricular catheters were in zone V1 and 100% were within zones V1-V3. No endoscopically inserted catheters were observed in zones V4, V5 or intraparenchymally. Thirty-eight percent of the conventionally placed catheters were in zone V1, 53% in zones V1-3 and 15% intraparenchymally. There was a statistically significant difference in the percentage of catheters in optimal location versus in any other location, favoring endoscopic guidance (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: We conclude that endoscopic ventricular catheter placement provides improved positioning accuracy than conventional techniques.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".