ArticleScientific reports2024
Modified ventriculoperitoneal shunt applied to temporary external ventricular drainage.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Correct understanding of the definition and management strategies for refractory hydrocephalus.Chinese neurosurgical journal · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
External ventricular drainage (EVD) is a common procedure in neurosurgical practice. Presently, the three methods used most often include direct EVD (dEVD), long-tunneled external ventricular drains (LTEVDs), and EVD via the Ommaya reservoir (EVDvOR). But they possess drawbacks such as limited duration of retention, vulnerability to iatrogenic secondary infections, and challenges in regulating drainage flow. This study aimed to explore the use of a modified ventriculoperitoneal shunt (mVPS)-the abdominal end of the VPS device was placed externally-as a means of temporary EVD to address the aforementioned limitations. This retrospective cohort study, included 120 cases requiring EVD. dEVD was performed for 31 cases, EVDvOR for 54 cases (including 8 cases with previously performed dEVD), and mVPS for 35 cases (including 6 cases with previously performed EVDvOR). The one-time success rate (no need for further other EVD intervention) for dEVD, EVDvOR, and mVPS were 70.97%, 88.89%, and 91.42%, dEVD vs EVDvOR (P < 0.05), dEVD vs mVPS (P < 0.05), EVDvOR vs mVPS (P > 0.05). Puncture needle displacement or detachment was observed in nearly all cases of EVDvOR, while no such complications have been observed with mVPS. Apart from this complication, the incidence of postoperative complications was 35.48%, 14.81%, and 8.5%, dEVD vs EVDvOR (P < 0.05), dEVD vs mVPS (P < 0.05), EVDvOR vs mVPS (P > 0.05). Mean postoperative retention for EVD was 14.68 ± 9.50 days, 25.96 ± 15.14 days, and 82.43 ± 64.45 days, respectively (P < 0.001). In conclusion, mVPS significantly extends the duration of EVD, which is particularly beneficial for patients requiring long-term EVD.
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.