Endoscopic third ventriculostomy in previously shunt-treated patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV) is an option for treatment of hydrocephalus, including for patients who have a history of previous treatment with CSF shunt insertion. The purpose of this study was to report the success of postshunt ETV by using data from a multicenter prospective registry. METHODS: Prospectively collected data in the Hydrocephalus Clinical Research Network (HCRN) Core Data Project (i.e., HCRN Registry) were reviewed. Children who underwent ETV between 2008 and 2019 and had a history of previous treatment with a CSF shunt were included. A Kaplan-Meier survival curve was created for the primary outcome: time from postshunt ETV to subsequent CSF shunt placement or revision. Univariable Cox proportional hazards models were created to evaluate for an association between clinical and demographic variables and subsequent shunt surgery. Postshunt ETV complications were also identified and categorized. RESULTS: A total of 203 children were included: 57% male and 43% female; 74% White, 23% Black, and 4% other race. The most common hydrocephalus etiologies were postintraventricular hemorrhage secondary to prematurity (56, 28%) and aqueductal stenosis (42, 21%). The ETV Success Score ranged from 10 to 80. The median patient age was 4.1 years. The overall success of postshunt ETV at 6 months was 41%. Only the surgeon's report of a clear view of the basilar artery was associated with a lower likelihood of postshunt ETV failure (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.23-0.82, p = 0.009). None of the following variables were associated with postshunt ETV success: age at the time of postshunt ETV, etiology of hydrocephalus, sex, race, ventricle size, number of previous shunt operations, ETV performed at time of shunt infection, and use of external ventricular drainage. Overall, complications were reported in 22% of patients, with CSF leak (8.6%) being the most common complication. CONCLUSIONS: Postshunt ETV was successful in treating hydrocephalus, without subsequent need for a CSF shunt, in 41% of patients, with a clear view of the basilar artery being the only variable significantly associated with success. Complications occurred in 22% of patients. ETV is an option for treatment of hydrocephalus in children who have previously undergone shunt placement, but with a lower than expected likelihood of success.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".