ReviewActa neurochirurgica2024
Ventriculo-atrial shunt in idiopathic intracranial hypertension.
Review in Acta neurochirurgica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lumbocaval Shunt for Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension: A Technical Report and Case Series.Neurosurgery practice · 2024Article
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
purposeCSF diversion is a recognised intervention in idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH), particularly in the presence of vision-threatening papilledema. Although ventriculo-atrial (VA) shunt insertion is a routine neurosurgical procedure, ventriculoperitoneal and lumboperitoneal shunts have been mostly used in this particular indication. This study aims to look at a single centre's experience with VA shunts in idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH).
methodsRetrospective case series with a review of electronic records over a 10-year period; exclusion criteria were duplication of same shunt insertion, no VA shunt insertion, paediatric patients and indication other than IIH. Notes were reviewed for demographics, shunt survival (defined by time prior to revision) and reasons for revision.
resultsEight VA shunt procedures were identified in 6 patients (mean age at insertion 34 ± 10 years) with a mean follow-up of 58 ± 25 months. All shunts were secondary procedures; 2 revisions from lumbo-pleural, 2 from ventriculopleural, 2 from ventriculoatrial and one each from ventriculoperitoneal and combined lumbo-/ventriculoperitoneal. At 50 months, 75% of VA shunts had survived, compared to only 58.3% of VPleural shunts in patients with IIH. Revisions were required due to acute intracranial bleed (1 case)-revised at day 1, and thrombus at distal site (1 case)-revised at day 57. Both shunts were later reinserted. From the latest clinic letters, all patients had their treatment optimised with this procedure, although only two patients had documented resolved papilloedema post-procedure.
conclusionsVentriculo-atrial shunts are a safe and efficacious alternative option for CSF diversion in IIH. In this series, only 1 shunt was revised for a VA shunt-specific complication.
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.