Endoscopic third ventriculostomy with or without choroid plexus coagulation for myelomeningocele-associated hydrocephalus: systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: While ventriculoperitoneal shunt (VPS) insertion is the standard treatment for myelomeningocele-associated hydrocephalus (MAH), it can be complicated by infection and shunt malfunction. As such, endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV), with or without choroid plexus coagulation (CPC), has been proposed as an alternative. The aim of this review was to determine the success, technical failure, and complication rates of ETV with or without CPC in patients with MAH. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched from inception to June 2020 for case series, cohort studies, or randomized controlled trials reporting success, technical failure, or complication rates. Random-effects analysis was performed to determine the estimates for these outcome measures. Studies were evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for quality and risk of bias. RESULTS: Thirteen studies with a total of 325 patients who underwent either ETV or ETV+CPC were included in the review. Using random-effects modeling, the pooled estimate of the success rate was 56% (95% CI 44%-68%, I2 = 78%), while the technical failure rate was 2% (95% CI 0%-6%, I2 = 32%). The estimate for the success rate had high heterogeneity, due to the type of surgical intervention (ETV vs ETV+CPC, p < 0.001). Random-effects analysis of 9 studies with 117 patients who underwent ETV alone yielded an estimated success rate of 48% (95% CI 0.39-0.57, I2 = 0%), while analysis of 4 studies with 166 patients who underwent ETV+CPC revealed a success rate of 75% (95% CI 67%-82%, I2 = 21%). The estimates for the mild/moderate, severe, and fatal complication rates were 0 (95% CI 0%-4%, I2 = 0%), 2% (95% CI 0%-10%, I2 = 52%), and 0 (95% CI 0%-1%, I2 = 0%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: ETV+CPC was associated with a higher success rate than ETV alone for MAH in a meta-analysis of published studies. ETV, with or without CPC, was technically feasible and safe for this patient population.
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 | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".