ReviewSurgical neurology international2025
Re-endoscopic third ventriculostomy versus ventriculoperitoneal shunting in failed endoscopic third ventriculostomy in pediatric patients with hydrocephalus: A systematic review.
Review in Surgical neurology international, 2025. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The objective of this research article is to compare endoscopic treatment versus shunting procedures for failed endoscopic third ventriculostomies (ETVs) in pediatric patients with hydrocephalus. Methods: We did a systematic review based on preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines on Studies involving pediatric patients (aged 0-18 years) diagnosed with hydrocephalus, reporting on the use of repeat ETV (Re-ETV) or Ventriculoperitoneal shunting (VPS) as a treatment option following failed ETV. Comparative studies, including randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and any prospective studies, are included. Studies published in the English language conducted between 2001 and 2023 are included. Results: Forty articles were selected for full-text review. Out of which nine articles that clearly addressed the topic of Re-ETV and/or VPS placement after failure of primary ETV were deemed suitable for analysis. A data set of 663 patients was analyzed. Re-ETV was done in 220 patients (33.18%) and VPS Placement was done in 443 patients (66.81%). The primary ETV failure rates ranged from 16.6 to 60.89%. There was a higher failure rate of Re-ETV (74.98%) compared to VPS (22.26%) indicating that VPS is generally more successful as a secondary intervention. The presence of hemorrhage during primary ETV suggested more benefit from VPS placement rather than Re-ETV ( Conclusion: Our systematic review suggests that VPS placement is the more prevalent choice after primary ETV failure, likely due to its higher overall success rate and the nature of complications. The wide variability in failure rates and follow-up durations suggests that treatment outcomes can differ greatly between patients and studies. Decisions regarding secondary interventions should be individualized, considering patient-specific factors such as age, complications, and timing of intervention.
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.