MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362456071 · doi:10.3171/2023.1.focus22637

Characteristics of shunt failure in 38,095 adult shunt insertion surgeries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2023· review· en· W4362456071 on OpenAlexaff
Albert M. Isaacs, Runze Yang, Magalie Cadieux, David Ben‐Israel, Nicholas Sader, Michael Opoku-Darko, Leonardo A. Frizon, Heather Yong, Zahra Premji, Sean J. Nagel, Mark G. Hamilton, Nick Dasher, R. Lawrence Edwards, James Golomb, Richard Holubkov, Mark G. Luciano, Heather Katzen, Guy M. McKhann, Abhay Moghekar, Michael A. Williams, Jeffrey H. Wisoff, Tom Zwimpfer

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurosurgical FOCUS · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalus
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShunt (medical)MedicineMeta-analysisHydrocephalusPopulationEtiologySurgerySystematic reviewMEDLINEInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The management of excess CSF in patients with hydrocephalus typically requires using a shunt to divert CSF. Unfortunately, there is a high rate of shunt failure despite improvements in device components and insertion techniques. Reoperation is frequently necessary, which contributes to patient harm and increased healthcare costs. While factors affecting shunt failure are well defined in the pediatric population, information regarding adults is lacking. The authors undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine how shunt failure in the adult population is reported and investigated the etiologies of shunt failure. METHODS: This review is reported according to PRIMSA and utilized the MEDLINE, Embase, and Google Scholar databases. Abstracts were screened by two independent reviewers, and data were extracted in duplicate by two independent reviewers. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS and Stata. RESULTS: The pooled rates of shunt failure were 10% (95% CI 5%-15%) in studies with a mean follow-up time of less than 1 year, 12% (95% CI 8%-14%) with a follow-up time between 1 and 2 years, and 32% in studies with a follow-up time of 2 years or greater (95% CI 19%-43%). The pooled rate of failure was 17% across all studies. The most common cause of shunt failure was obstruction at 3.0% (95% CI 2%-4%), accounting for 23.2% of shunt failures. Infection was the second most common at 2.8% (95% CI 2%-3%), accounting for 22.5% of shunt failures. The most common location of shunt failure was the distal catheter, with a failure rate of 4.0% (95% CI 3%-5%), accounting for 33.4% of shunt failures. The definition of shunt failure was heterogeneous and varied depending on institutional practices. The combination of symptoms with either CT or MRI was the most frequently reported method for assessing shunt failure. CONCLUSIONS: Important variation regarding how to define, investigate, and report shunt failure was identified. The overall shunt failure rate in adults is at least 32% after 2 years, which, while lower than that typically reported in the pediatric population, is significant. The most common causes of shunt failure in adults are infection and obstruction. The most common site of failure occurred at the distal catheter, highlighting the need to develop strategies to both report and mitigate distal shunt failure in adult shunt patients.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.243 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations19
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurosurgical FOCUSSame topicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalusFrench-language works237,207