ArticleChild's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery2022
Retrospective single-center historical comparative study between proGAV and proGAV2.0 for surgical revision and implant duration.
Article in Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery, 2022. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Changes of head circumference and ventricular width in infant hydrocephalus managed with adjustable shunt valves and gravitational assistance-a comparative bi-center study.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2025Article
- Comparative analysis of 333 proGAV® and proGAV 2.0® adjustable valves in pediatric hydrocephalus treatment: survival and complication rate assessment.Acta neurochirurgica · 2024Article
- Three-Dimensional Visualization of Shunt Valves with Photon Counting CT and Comparison to Traditional X-ray in a Simple Phantom Model.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2024Article
- Programmable (proSA®) vs. fixed (SHUNTASSISTANT®) gravitational valves in pediatric patients with hydrocephalus: a 16-year retrospective single-center comparative study with biomechanical analysis.Acta neurochirurgica · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveCerebrospinal fluid (CSF) diversion shunt systems remain to be the most common treatment for pediatric hydrocephalus. Different valve systems are used to regulate CSF diversion. Preventing complications such as occlusions, ruptures, malpositioning, and over- or underdrainage are the focus for further developments. The proGAV and proGAV2.0 valve system are compared in this retrospective study for revision-free survival and isolated valve revision paradigms.
methodsIn the first part of the study, the shunt and valve revision-free survival rates were investigated in a retrospective historical comparison design for a period of 2 years in which each valve was used as standard valve (proGAV: July 2012-June 2014; proGAV2.0: January 2015-December 2016) with subsequent 30-month follow-up period, respectively. In the second part of the study, the implant duration was calculated by detecting isolated valve (valve-only) revisions together with another valve explantation during the entire period of the first study and its follow-up period.
resultsTwo hundred sixty-two patients (145 male and 117 female, mean age 6.2 ± 6.1 years) were included in the cohort of revision-free survival. During the 30-month follow-up period, 41 shunt revisions, including 27 valve revisions (shunt survival rate: 72.1%, valve survival rate: 81.6%) were performed in the proGAV cohort and 37 shunt revisions, including 21 valve revisions (shunt survival rate: 74.8% and valve survival rate: 85.0%) were performed in the proGAV2.0 cohort without showing statistically significant differences. In the second part of the study, 38 cases (mean age 4.0 ± 3.9 years) met the inclusion criteria of receiving a valve-only-revision. In those patients, a total of 44 proGAV and 42 proGAV2.0 were implanted and explanted during the entire study time. In those, a significantly longer implant duration was observed for proGAV (mean valve duration 961.9 ± 650.8 days) compared to proGAV2.0 (mean length of implantation period 601.4 ± 487.8 days; p = 0.004).
conclusionThe shunt and valve revision-free survival rates were found to be similar among the groups during 30 month follow-up. In patients who received "valve only" revisions and a subsequent explanation, the implant duration was significantly longer in the proGAV. Although the amount of patients with valve-only-revisions are small compared to the entire cohort certain patients seem to be at higher risk for repeated valve revisions.
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.