ArticleClinical interventions in aging2023
Clinical Outcome and Safety of Lumboperitoneal Shunt in the Treatment of Non-Obstructive Hydrocephalus.
Article in Clinical interventions in aging, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- CSF drainage strategy and complication management of hydrocephalus.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Review
- Intraoperative cone-beam CT for real-time quality control in CSF shunt surgery: a prospective workflow study.Brain & spine · 2026Article
- Symptomatic subcutaneous emphysema following lumboperitoneal shunt placement: illustrative case.Journal of neurosurgery. Case lessons · 2025Article
- Lumboperitoneal shunting as a rescue strategy in the management of complex cranial wound conditions.Brain & spine · 2025Article
- Surgery for post-traumatic hydrocephalus: lessons, challenges and future directions.Frontiers in neurologyReview
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the functional outcomes of lumboperitoneal (LP) shunt for the treatment of non-obstructive hydrocephalus. Methods: We retrospectively studied the clinical surgical results of 172 adult patients with hydrocephalus who underwent LP shunt surgery between June 2014 and June 2019. Data regarding the following were collected: pre- and postoperative symptom status, third ventricle width changes, Evans index, and postoperative complications. Additionally, the baseline and follow-up Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score, Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS), and Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores were investigated. All patients were followed up for ≥12 months using clinical interview and braining imaging using computed tomography (CT) scan or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Results: Majority of patients presented with normal pressure hydrocephalus as the etiology of their disease (48.8%), followed by cardiovascular accident (28.5%), trauma (19.7%), and brain tumor (3%). The mean GCS, GOS, and mRS improved postoperatively. The average period from symptomatic onset to surgery was 402 days. The average width of the third ventricle on CT scan or MRI was 11.43 mm preoperatively and 10.8 mm postoperatively (P<0.001). The Evans index improved from 0.258 to 0.222 after operation. The symptomatic improvement score was 7.0, with a complication rate of 7%. Conclusion: Significant improvement was observed in the functional score and brain image after LP shunt placement. Moreover, the satisfaction with symptomatic improvement after surgery remains high. LP shunt operation is a viable alternative in the treatment of non-obstructive hydrocephalus due to the low complication rate, fast recovery, and high satisfaction.
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.