ArticleActa neurochirurgica2024
Comparative analysis of 333 proGAV® and proGAV 2.0® adjustable valves in pediatric hydrocephalus treatment: survival and complication rate assessment.
Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectiveProGAV and ProGAV2.0 adjustable valves are extensively used for treating hydrocephalus in pediatric patients. This study aims to conduct a comprehensive comparison between these two valves concerning their survival and complication rates.
methodsThis retrospective study included all pediatric patients who underwent ProGAV or ProGAV2.0 valve implantation at our neurosurgical clinic from August 2008 to August 2020. A comparative analysis was performed considering age, gender, follow-up duration, complication and survival rates, adjustments, spontaneous adjustments, and adjustment difficulty rates. All valves were followed up for a maximum of 3 years.
resultsInclusion involved 333 cases (mean age of 5.4 ± 5.1 years; 54.1% males), comprising 173 cases (52.0%) with ProGAV valve implantation and 160 cases (48.0%) with ProGAV 2.0. Early complications within the first month post-implantation were observed in 51 cases (15.3%). No significant differences were noted in valve implantation indications, age distribution, or survival duration (27.1 vs. 27.8 months, p = 0.629) between the two groups. Predominant indications for implantation were post-hemorrhagic hydrocephalus and aqueduct stenosis for both valve types. Notably, both valves showed non-significantly different explantation rates during the first three years after implantation (34.7% vs. 29.7%, p < 0.289). However, there was a significantly higher early post-implantation complication rate (22% vs. 9.4%, p = 0.002), and a significantly increased association with difficulties in valve adjustments and spontaneous adjustments (p = 0.041 and 0.011, respectively). ProGAV2.0 cases displayed notably enhanced clinical and radiological improvement within the initial 6 months after implantation (p = 0.001 and p = 0.038). Younger children (< 2 years of age) also experienced significantly more valve adjustment difficulties (p = 0.049) and had higher rates of valve explantation (p < 0.001).
conclusionThe findings of this study highlight the superior performance of the ProGAV2.0 valve in terms of complication rate and maladjustment rate when employed in the treatment of pediatric hydrocephalus. Both valves demonstrated an acceptable survival rate with 65.3% for ProGAV and 71.3% for ProGAV2.0 within three years of implantation.
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.