Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35733459›Full record

ReviewCureus2022

Failure of Endoscopic Third Ventriculostomy.

Jessica Lane, Syed Hassan A Akbari

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Managing hydrocephalus in 54 infants under 3 months of age: A single center cohort study.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Stented endoscopic third ventriculostomy: technique, safety, and indications-a multicenter multinational study.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jessica LaneDepartment of Neurosurgery, Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, USA.
Syed Hassan A AkbariDepartment of Neurosurgery, Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, USA.
Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV) is an alternative to cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) shunting in the treatment of hydrocephalus. Careful patient selection is critical as patient age, etiology of hydrocephalus, and previous shunting have been shown to influence ETV success rates. Intraoperatively, patient anatomy and medical stability may prevent or limit the completion of the ventriculostomy procedure, and findings such as a patulous third ventricular floor or cisternal scarring may portend a lower chance of successful hydrocephalus treatment. Patients in whom a ventriculostomy is completed may still experience continued symptoms of hydrocephalus or CSF leak, representing an early ETV failure. In other patients, the ETV may prove a durable treatment of hydrocephalus for several months or even years before recurrence of hydrocephalus symptoms. The failure pattern for ETV is different than that of shunting, with a higher early failure rate but improved long-term failure-free survival rates. The risk factors for failure, along with the presentation and management of failure, deserve review.

Indexed as

adult hydrocephalusendoscopic third ventriculostomyhydrocephalus managementintraoperative complicationslate etv failurepediatric hydrocephalustreatment failure

Identifiers

PMID35733459
PMCPMC9205383
OpenAlexW4280596975

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.