ReviewSurgical neurology international2024
Is endoscopic third ventriculostomy a viable treatment option for normal pressure hydrocephalus? A systematic review.
Review in Surgical neurology international, 2024. 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.
- Clinical Outcomes of Lumboperitoneal Shunt Surgery for Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus : A 5-Year Single-Center Retrospective Study of Patients with at Least 1 Year of Follow-Up.Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society · 2026Article
- The impact of perioperative aspirin utilization on postoperative hemorrhagic complications in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: a single-center retrospective analysis.Neurosurgical review · 2025Article
- Complications and risk factors of endoscopic third ventriculostomy: A 10-year single-centre study and systematic literature review.Brain & spine · 2025Article
- Successful endoscopic third ventriculostomy in a patient with 40 years of ventriculoperitoneal shunt dependency since infancy: a case report.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV) is considered an alternative treatment for hydrocephalus and has become a standard of care for obstructive hydrocephalus. Recent studies have also explored its role in normal pressure hydrocephalus (NPH). We conducted a systematic review aiming to assess the outcomes of this minimally invasive endoscopic technique as a viable treatment option for NPH. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed and Scopus databases, using iterations of search terms "Endoscopic third ventriculostomy," "Idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus," and "Normal pressure hydrocephalus." To be eligible for inclusion in the review, articles had to report the usage of ETV as a primary treatment modality for NPH, report its outcomes, and be published in the English language. Results: Out of the 13 studies selected for qualitative synthesis, nine supported the use of ETV for NPH as an effective treatment option with improvement in the preoperative symptoms. Two studies favored shunt over ETV, stating that quality of life is better with VP shunt insertion. One study reported that ETV has higher perioperative mortality rates that outweigh its benefits. One study reported it to be an ineffective surgical option. Conclusion: The current review of evidence does not support the use of ETV for the treatment of NPH, except perhaps in a small subset of patients. These patients have a shorter duration of symptoms and a better preoperative neurological status. The lumbar infusion test and ventricular infusion test are modalities useful for selecting these candidates.
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.