These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Laparoscopic Versus Open Ventriculoperitoneal Shunt Placement: A Non-inferiority Study.
    Author: Cooper DJ, Begley S, Zamor C, Schulder M.
    Journal: J Clin Neurosci; 2023 Sep; 115():24-28. PubMed ID: 37459828.
    Abstract:
    Ventriculoperitoneal shunt (VPS) insertion into the abdominal cavity had been done for decades via an open approach. Recently, the laparoscopic insertion of the peritoneal portion of the shunt has become an option. The aim of this study is to compare outcomes between these two approaches. We performed a single institution retrospective review of 104 consecutive adult patients between 2015 and 2017. Patients had peritoneal catheters placed either via an open approach by the neurosurgical team, or laparoscopically by general surgeons. Patient demographics and outcomes were compared using a non-inferiority analysis. Independent variables in the analysis included patient age, gender, race, BMI, surgery performed, previous VPS placement, previous abdominal procedures, and VPS indication, while dependent variables included length of stay (LOS), estimated blood loss (EBL), occurrence of shunt failure, and postoperative complications. Cohort analysis included 62 open and 42 laparoscopic cases with similar baseline characteristics. In terms of patient outcomes, EBL and hospital stay duration were shown to be non-inferior in the open group as compared to the laparoscopic group. We could not prove non-inferiority based on risk for overall or distal shunt failure. Neurosurgeons may reasonably continue to place peritoneal shunt catheters using a "traditional" method.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]