MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417091280 · doi:10.3171/2025.7.peds25167

Treatment of Posthemorrhagic Hydrocephalus in neonates (TROPHY) registry: surgical results from 6-month follow-up data

2025· article· en· W4417091280 on OpenAlexaff
Ulrich‐Wilhelm Thomale, Elena Bogoslovskaia, Friederike Knerlich‐Lukoschus, Pietro Spennato, Christian Auer, Ahmed El Damaty, Andreas Schaumann, Valentina Pennacchietti, Matthias Schulz, Dennis R. Buis, Vladislav Demyanenko, Alexander Seliverstov, Oksana Usatova, Onur Özgüral, Gökmen Kahiloğulları, Martin U. Schuhmann, Rolando Jimenez‐Guerra, Thomas Beez, Nunthasiri Wittayanakorn, A G Sukharev, Stefan Linsler, Joachim Oertel, Petr Vacek, Ruslan Pankratiev, A.G. Timershin, Mykhailo Lovha, Raphaël Guzman, Sarah Stricker, Christoph Wiegand, Megan Votoupal, Soslan B. Medoev, E. F. Fatykhova, К.А. Kovalkov, Д.Р. Погосова, Christoph Bührer, Sandi Lam, Spyros Sgouros, Jonathan Roth, Shlomi Constantini, Sérgio Cavalheiro, Giuseppe Cinalli, Abhaya V. Kulkarni, Sergey Gorelyshev, Hans Bock

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurosurgery Pediatrics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal and fetal brain pathology
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydrocephalusShunt (medical)Patient dataComplicationMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Hydrocephalus due to intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) during prematurity represents a challenging form of CSF circulation disturbance. It remains unresolved as to which temporary measures are best for intracranial pressure relief before sufficient body weight is reached to perform shunt implantation. The international Treatment of Posthemorrhagic Hydrocephalus in neonates (TROPHY) registry was designed to compare the safety and efficacy of 4 different methods of temporary treatment. The aim of this study was to investigate 6-month follow-up data from the TROPHY registry to characterize and compare perioperative measures, reoperations, complications, and shunt dependency among the different treatment methods. METHODS: An online registry designed for multicenter international prospective data collection was reviewed for patients with complete datasets that included 6-month follow-up data. Eligible patients were neonates with IVH and progressive ventricular enlargement necessitating surgical pressure relief. Four possible methods of intervention were assessed: ventricular access device (VAD) placement, external ventricular drainage (EVD), ventricular subgaleal shunt (VSGS) placement, and neuroendoscopic lavage (NEL). Preoperative data, perioperative aspects of surgery, and 6-month follow-up data were collected in a standardized manner. RESULTS: Of 238 patients with posthemorrhagic hydrocephalus (PHH) included in this analysis, 47 received a VAD, 34 received EVD, 75 received a VSGS, and 82 received NEL. After 6 months of follow-up, differences were seen in the rate of unilateral frontal tissue defect at the entry point (p < 0.001, highest in the NEL group and lowest in the VAD group), multiloculated hydrocephalus (p < 0.05, highest in the EVD group and lowest in the NEL group), parenchymal defect (p < 0.05, highest in the VAD and lowest in the EVD group), and the proportion of patients needing a permanent shunt (p < 0.001, highest in the VSGS group and lowest in the NEL group). No significant differences were seen in rates of complications or revisions among the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of 6-month follow-up TROPHY registry data provided further insights into treatment options for PHH after neonatal IVH. NEL had the lowest probability of needing a shunt at 6 months. Further research will be performed to draw clearer conclusions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurosurgery PediatricsSame topicNeonatal and fetal brain pathologyFrench-language works237,207