Trial reportFluids and barriers of the CNS2026
Ultrasound-guided versus stereotactically navigated ventriculoperitoneal shunt placement: a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Fluids and barriers of the CNS, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04450797 (Intraoperative Ultrasound Guided Compared to Stereotactic Navigated Ventriculoperitoneal Shunt Placement), which is not on this 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.
Intraoperative Ultrasound Guided Compared to Stereotactic Navigated Ventriculoperitoneal Shunt Placement: A Randomized Controlled Study
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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate catheter positioning is essential for optimal outcomes in ventriculoperitoneal shunt (VPS) surgery, while shorter operative times lower infection risk and costs. Navigated VPS placement, using either intraoperative ultrasound-guided (US-G) or stereotactically guided (ST-G) navigation, enhances catheter accuracy and reduces revision rates. However, high-quality studies comparing the two navigation methods are lacking. We aim to compare surgical intervention time, accuracy, and safety of US-G to ST-G VPS placement.
methodsThe Navigated VPS (NAVPS) trial was an investigator-initiated, randomized trial conducted from February 2020 to June 2024 in the Neurosurgical Department of the University Hospital of Basel. Consecutive adults undergoing VPS placement were included. Out of 153 screened participants, 134 participants were included. Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive either US-G or ST-G insertion of the ventricular catheter. The primary outcome was surgical intervention time. An intention to treat analysis was performed calculating surgical intervention time differences. Secondary outcomes were accuracy of catheter positioning, number of ventricular puncture attempts, and VPS dysfunction and complication rates. The study follow-up lasted 6 months.
resultsOf 134 participants, 66 were assigned to US-G and 68 to ST-G. The mean (SD) age was 73 (55.3 to 78) and 66 (54.5 to 73) years for the US-G and ST-G, respectively, and 58 participants (45.7%) were female. The US-G group had significantly shorter surgical intervention times compared to the ST-G group (-11.5 min; 95% CI -18.5 to -4.5; P = 0.002). The number of ventricular puncture attempts was significantly higher in the US-G group, while accuracy of catheter placement, and VPS dysfunction and complications rates were comparable in both groups.
conclusionsThe NAVPS trial shows US-G VPS placement to be more time-efficient, while accuracy of catheter placement and complication rates seem to be comparable to ST-G placement. US-G can be efficiently and safely used in clinical practice.
trial registrationclinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04450797, date of registration: 22.06.2020.
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.