ArticleNeurosurgical review2025
Accuracy, outcome and complication of Free-hand VP shunt catheter placement.
Article in Neurosurgical review, 2025. 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.
- Comparison of Free-Hand Technique and Neuronavigation in Intraventricular Shunt Catheter Placement.Neurosciences (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There has been continued use of the free-hand technique for ventriculoperitoneal (VP) shunt placement. However, few studies have evaluated the accuracy of this technique. We conducted a retrospective study of patients who underwent free-hand VP shunt placement between 2011 and 2020. We assessed the accuracy of the entry point. The catheter tip was classified as being in a "good" location if it was situated in the ipsilateral frontal horn or the body of the lateral ventricle. Surgical complications and revision rates were analyzed. A total of 242 cases were included (Kocher's point: 12.0%, Keen's point: 88.0%). A good ventricular tip position was achieved in 62.1% of Kocher's cases and 19.2% of Keen's cases. Early and late shunt revisions were required in 10.3% and 13.8% of Kocher's cases and in 6.1% and 3.8% of Keen's cases. The deviation from the intended entry point was significantly greater for Keen's point compared to Kocher's (p = 0.001). In Keen's point cases, greater deviation was significantly associated with a malpositioned catheter tip (p = 0.02), but not in Kocher's point cases(p = 0.982). Additionally, longer catheter length was significantly associated with bad tip positioning only in Keen's point insertions (p < 0.001). Malpositioned catheter tips were not significantly associated with higher early or late revision rates in either group. Our study demonstrates that the free-hand technique for ventricular catheter placement provides suboptimal accuracy. However, neither the precision of the entry point nor the final catheter tip location correlated significantly with the need for revision.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41254230What 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.