SynthesisNeurosurgical review2021
Strengths and weaknesses of frontal versus occipital ventriculoperitoneal shunt placement: A systematic review.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Application Value of Personalized 3D Printed Navigation Molds in Neurosurgery.Journal of neurological surgery. Part A, Central European neurosurgery · 2026Article
- 17 years of experience with shunt systems in normal pressure hydrocephalus - From differential pressure to gravitational valves.World neurosurgery: X · 2024Article
- Distal shunt placement in pediatric ventriculoperitoneal shunt surgery: an international survey of practice.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2023Article
- Cerebrospinal fluid hydrocephalus shunting: cisterna magna, ventricular frontal, ventricular occipital.Neurosurgical review · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Excessive accumulation of cerebrospinal fluid within the brain ventricles is called hydrocephalus, which results in increased intracranial pressure preventing brain growth or causing damage to intracranial structures due to raised intracranial pressure. One of the most common treatment options for this pathology includes the placement of a ventriculoperitoneal shunt to drain the excess fluid. The location of catheterization is traditionally considered as an important factor affecting shunt survival. In this study, we aimed to systematically review all available documents to determine the advantage and superiority of frontal or occipital shunt entry points as the two main approaches. A database search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, Medline, Ovid, and Google Scholar using "ventriculoperitoneal", "shunt placement", and "hydrocephalus" as the main key terms. Resultant articles were screened for relevancy based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria by two authors independently. After excluding irrelevant documents, the data of 11 related articles consisting of 3947 patients were extracted and qualitative data synthesis and pooled analysis were performed. The results of the included studies showed that although the outcomes of a higher percentage of the total review population were in favor of frontal shunt placement, there was no significant superiority for neither of these two approaches after pooled analysis of available failure rates. Findings have shown that each approach has benefits and drawbacks, and there may be other factors such as age and valve design besides the position of shunt placement that may affect the survival rate. Also, the accuracy of shunt placement as an independent factor affects the failure rate and can be improved with various image-guidance methods to minimize shunt failure.
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.