ReviewJournal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR2016
Review of the Management of Peroral Extrusion of Ventriculoperitoneal Shunt Catheter.
Review in Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Migration of the distal ventriculoperitoneal shunt catheter into the stomach with or without trans-oral extrusion: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis.World journal of clinical pediatrics · 2023Article
- Gastric perforation from a migrating ventriculoperitoneal shunt: A case report and review of literature.Radiology case reports · 2022Article
- Abdominal Complications Related to Ventriculoperitoneal Shunt Placement: A Comprehensive Review of Literature.Cureus · 2021Review
- Gastric perforation by a ventriculoperitoneal shunt in an adult.Neurosciences (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia) · 2020Article
- Upward migration and peroral extrusion of a peritoneal shunt catheter: Case report and review of the literature.Surgical neurology international · 2017Article
- Ventriculoperitoneal Shunt Disconnection, Shunt Migration, and Silent Bowel Perforation in a 10-Year-Old Boy.Journal of neurosciences in rural practiceArticle
- The Conundrum of Ventricular Dilatations Following Decompressive Craniectomy: Is Ventriculoperitoneal Shunt, The Only Panacea?Journal of neurosciences in rural practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPeroral extrusion of peritoneal part of Ventriculoperitoneal Shunt (VPS) catheter is an extremely rare complication following VPS implantation.
aimTo review the options available for the management of peroral extrusion of VPS catheter. MATERIALS AND
methodsPubMed, Medline, PMC (PubMed Central), Embase, Google scholar databases search was performed to retrieve the published/available data relating to the peroral extrusion of VPS catheter. The keywords employed were "peroral extrusion of ventriculoperitoneal shunt catheter", "transoral extrusion of ventriculoperitoneal shunt catheter", and "oral extrusion of ventriculoperitoneal shunt catheter". The maiden description of peroral extrusion of VPS catheter was reported in the year 1987, and the data relating to peroral extrusion of VPS were retrieved from that period to June 30, 2016, and those were available in English literature.
resultsTwenty-two published manuscripts (n) were available on the topic relating to peroral extrusion of VPS catheter. All were cases and were included for the review. This review included n=10; 45.45% male and n=12; 54.54% female. All of them were reported in children below 12-year of the age, except two case reports in adult that occurred at the age of 27-year and 47-year, respectively. Overall, the mean age at the time of peroral extrusion of VPS catheter was 6.94 ± 10.87 years. The interval from VPS insertion or last shunt revision to the occurrence of peroral extrusion of VPS catheter ranged from 10-days to 10-year, with a mean of 20.31 ± 28.37 months. More than two-third (n=15; 68.18%) of the case occurred within one-year of VPS insertion/last shunt revision. Clinical diagnosis was obvious in all the cases due to peroral extrusion of VPS catheter. The site of perforation by the VPS catheter was stomach in 15, jejunum in 1, diaphragm/trachea in 1, while the site of bowel perforation was not mentioned in 5 cases. Surgical procedures opted by authors in order of frequency were: (a) removal of entire VPS catheter n=5; (b) removal of entire VPS catheter, and delayed re-VPS n=5; (c) removal of peritoneal catheter with or without External Ventricular Drainage (EVD), and revision of peritoneal catheter n=3; (d) removal of peritoneal catheter, with or without EVD, and VA shunt n=3; (e) removal of peritoneal catheter, EVD and delayed re-VPS n=2; (f) removal of entire VPS catheter, EVD and delayed re-VPS n=2; (g) removal of peritoneal catheter, EVD and others n=2. Two deaths are also reported during the management of peroral extrusion of VPS catheter.
conclusionPeroral extrusion of peritoneal part of VPS catheter is an extremely rare complication following VPS insertion, and most frequently observed in children, although also reported in adults. In more than two-third of the cases it occurred within one-year of the VPS placement or last shunts revision, so a close follow-up is a must during this period following VPS placement. Management of such a case depends upon many factors such as presence or absence of shunt tract infection, peritonitis, meningitis, and cerebro spinal fluid infection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.