ArticleFrontiers in neurology2022
Lumboperitoneal shunt surgery
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Minimizing complications in lumboperitoneal shunt for normal pressure hydrocephalus: Technical note and case series.Surgical neurology international · 2026Article
- Lumboperitoneal shunting as a rescue strategy in the management of complex cranial wound conditions.Brain & spine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Lumboperitoneal shunt (LPS) is an effective procedure for managing communicating hydrocephalus. LPS is performed as a one-stage procedure with the patient placed in the lateral position or as a two-stage procedure in which the patient's position is changed. Both methods can be bothersome to neurosurgeons. We designed a continuous two-stage LPS procedure in which the operative sites did not need to be sterilized again, and the surgical drapes did not have to be changed after changing the patient's position. In this study, we analyzed this procedure in terms of the technical features and outcomes. Methods: All patients from our institute who underwent LPS using the continuous two-stage procedure from October 2019 to August 2021 were reviewed retrospectively. The patient's demographic information, clinical features, operative data, and outcomes were analyzed. Results: A total of 46 consecutive patients who underwent LPS using the continuous two-stage procedure were enrolled. The mean operative duration was 70.6 ± 12.7 min. The 180-day revision rate for these patients was 2.2% (1/46). Moreover, 76.1% of the patients (35/46) experienced clinical improvement after LPS during the 180-day follow-up, and 70.0% of the patients (32/46) experienced an improvement in neuroimaging. Conclusion: We described a continuous two-stage LPS procedure. This method simplified the two-stage LPS procedure and maintained a low malfunction rate and shunt infection rate in our series.
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.