CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Arquivos Brasileiros de Neurocirurgia: Brazilian Neurosurgery 2018; 37(S 01): S1-S332
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1672428
E-Poster – Anatomy & Approaches
Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Comparison of Outcomes Between Patients with Idiopathic Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus Who Received a Primary versus a Salvage Shunt

Hugo Fialho
1   The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
,
Alice L. Hung
1   The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
,
Sharif Vakili
1   The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
,
Dane Moran
1   The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
,
Lee Jeon
1   The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
,
Eric W. Sankey
1   The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
,
Ignacio Jusué-Torres
1   The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
,
Jennifer Lu
1   The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
,
Rory C. Goodwin
1   The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
,
Benjamin D. Elder
1   The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
,
Daniele Rigamonti
1   The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
06 September 2018 (online)

 
 

    Introduction: Placement of a ventriculoperitoneal (VP) shunt is the treatment of choice for communicating hydrocephalus; however, the extent to which VP shunting is able to relieve symptoms in patients who had previously been treated with cerebrospinal fluid diverting therapy at an outside institution remains unclear.

    Objective: This study aims to verify if VP shunting is able to relieve symptoms in patients who had previously been treated with cerebrospinal fluid diverting therapy.

    Methods: A retrospective review of patients with idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus treated with VP shunts at a single institution between 1993 and 2013 was conducted. Patients were classified as having received a primary VP shunt if they had not been previously treated with a VP shunt, ventriculoatrial shunt, lumboperitoneal shunt, or endoscopic third ventriculostomy. Patients were classified as having received a salvage VP shunt if they had been previously treated by one of these four modalities at an outside institution prior to their presentation to our institution.

    Results: There were 357 patients who received a primary shunt and 33 patients who received a salvage shunt. Patients who had a salvage shunt placed had significantly higher odds of requiring a future revision (54% versus 41%; odds ratio = 2.85; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.24–6.57; p = 0.014). Patients who received a salvage shunt had statistically significantly lower rates of gait improvement at 6 months in comparison to patients who received a primary shunt (relative risk = 0.35; 95% CI: 0.14–0.87; p = 0.025).

    Conclusions: Despite these findings, there was no significant difference at last follow-up in improvement in gait, continence, and cognition, indicating that outcomes for patients requiring a salvage shunt were comparable to patients receiving a primary shunt.


    #

    No conflict of interest has been declared by the author(s).