Hair-sparing approach versus traditional hair clipping for cerebral spinal fluid shunt procedures: a retrospective comparative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) diversion methods, including ventriculoperitoneal (VP) shunts, are the standard treatment for hydrocephalus. Hair clipping (HC) has been a routine neurosurgical practice of the great majority of neurosurgeons, due to the perception that this will either decrease the risk of shunt infection or allow for a faster, unimpeded opening and closing of the skin. The benefits of not cutting or clipping hair in terms of normalizing appearance and self-esteem are obvious. The purpose of this study was to assess whether the rate of shunt infection would differ between pediatric patients receiving operation via the hair-sparing (HS) approach versus HC. METHODS: A retrospective single-institution study comparing HS versus HC was conducted on pediatric patients undergoing long-term CSF shunt procedures at the Montreal Children's Hospital between August 2014 and April 2021. The primary outcome measure was shunt infection at 90 days and at long-term follow-up. Inclusion criteria were having at least 18 months of follow-up after long-term CSF shunt procedures, including insertions or revisions of VP shunts, ventriculoatrial shunts, cystoperitoneal shunts, subdural-peritoneal shunts, ventriculosubgaleal shunts, and ventriculosubgaleal reservoirs. Excluded procedures were those involving external ventricular drains, externalized shunts, Omaya reservoirs, endoscopic third ventriculostomies, and lumbar shunts. RESULTS: There were 434 CSF shunt procedures performed in 226 unique patients; 155 (35.71%) procedures were done using the HS approach versus 279 (64.29%) procedures via HC. At 90 days postoperatively, the infection rate was 1.29% in the HS group and 2.87% in the HC group, with an absolute risk difference of 1.58% (95% CI -1.07% to 4.23%, p = 0.24). At long-term follow-up (mean follow-up: 752 days and 716 days for the HS and HC groups, respectively), the rate of shunt infection remained at 1.29% for the HS group (no new infections) but rose to 4.66% for the HC group, with an absolute risk difference of 3.37% (95% CI 0.33%-6.41%, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Performing CSF shunt procedures without cutting or clipping any hair has a very low risk of shunt infection, and certainly does not appear to increase the risk of infection (or malfunction) versus the hair removal approach. It is a safe alternative and should be considered due to its esthetic and psychological benefits regarding normalization of appearance and ease of resuming a normal life following shunt surgery.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".