Comparison of long‑term efficacy and revision rate of a valve mechanism without an antisiphon versus a valve mechanism with an incorporated antisiphon in pediatric patients: presentation of data of a single-center retrospective analysis

Main Article Content

Dimitrios Panagopoulos Georgios Stranjalis Efstathios Boviatsis Maro Gavra Stefanos Korfias

Abstract

Purpose: Hydrocephalus remains the most frequently encountered pathological entity that is referred to pediatric neurosurgeons. The implantation of a ventriculoperitoneal shunt constitutes the most commonly used treatment modality to manage this entity. The purpose of our study was centered on the comparison of two different adjustable shunt systems, namely Codman Medos-Hakim and pro-GAV 2.0 (without and with anti-siphon device respectively), on the basis of their long-term need for a revision, due to obstruction (malfunction).


Methods: Seven hundred and seventy-eight patients undergoing primary shunt implantation between 2013 and 2023 were analyzed for 1-year revision rate, as well as 5-year revision rate, observing patient age, sex, etiology of hydrocephalus, and underlying cause of revision.


Results: All aforementioned data were recorded to all of the participants of our survey. The female patients that were included were 202, whereas their male counterparts were 248. The total number of patients that underwent revision after primary shunt implantation were 113, regardless of the type of the initial valve mechanism. Overall, 99 patients underwent revision surgery after primary implantation. Pro-GAV valve was implanted in 311 patients, and pro-GAV 2.0 valves were implanted in 139 patients. Our preliminary results suggest that there was a significant difference between the two shunt valves concerning 1-year revision rate, as well as 5-year revision-free survival. Most notably, the statistical difference between the two valve systems was more pronounced when the comparison was based on the long-term functionality (5year survival) of the different valve systems.


Conclusion: Based on the parameters that were compared to our patient population, it seems that the long-term efficacy of the Pro-GAV 2.0 valve system is superior to the corresponding long -term functionality of the Medos-Hakim valvular system. Based on the fact that the main differentiating factor between these two shunt systems is based on the presence or no of an anti-siphon device, we could support the hypothesis that the incorporation of an anti-siphon device increases the revision-free survival of any shunt system. According to the target variables we analyzed there is a significant difference between the two shunt valves.

Keywords: anti-siphon device, valve malfunction, shunt over drainage, slit ventricle syndrome

Article Details

How to Cite
PANAGOPOULOS, Dimitrios et al. Comparison of long‑term efficacy and revision rate of a valve mechanism without an antisiphon versus a valve mechanism with an incorporated antisiphon in pediatric patients: presentation of data of a single-center retrospective analysis. Medical Research Archives, [S.l.], v. 11, n. 11, nov. 2023. ISSN 2375-1924. Available at: <https://esmed.org/MRA/mra/article/view/4680>. Date accessed: 18 apr. 2024. doi: https://doi.org/10.18103/mra.v11i11.4680.
Section
Research Articles

References

1. Grunert, P.; Charalampaki, P.; Ayyad, A. Concept and treatment of hydrocephalus in the Greco-Roman and early Arabic Medicine. Minim. Invasive Neurosurg. 2007; (50):253–264.

2. Rachel, R.A. Surgical treatment of hydrocephalus: A historical perspective. Pediatr. Neurosurg. 1999 ;(30):296–304.

3. Kompaje, E.J.; Delwel, E.J. The first description of a device for repeated external ventricular drainage in the treatment of congenital hydrocephalus, invented in 1744 by Claude-Nicolas Le Cat. Pediatr. Neurosurg. 2003; (39):10–13.

4. Cheok, S.; Chen, J.; Lazareff, J. The truth and coherence behind the concept of overdrainage of cerebrospinal fluid in hydrocephalic patients. Childs Nerv. Syst. 2014; (30):599–606.

5. Strenger, L. Complications of ventriculovenous shunts. J. Neurosurg. 1963; (20):219–224.

6. Hayward, R. “Casey and Theo”: The children who changed the face of “Water-on-the-brain”. Br. J. Neurosurg. 2009; (23):347–350.

7. Becker, D.P.; Nulsen, F.E. Control of hydrocephalus by valve-regulated venous shunt: Avoidance of complications in prolonged shunt maintenance. J. Neurosurg. 1968; (28):215–226.

8. Fox, J.L.; McCullough, D.C.; Green, R.C. Effect of cerebrospinal fluid shunts on intracranial pressure and on cerebrospinal fluid dynamics 2. A new technique of pressure measurements: Results and concepts 3. A concept of hydrocephalus. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 1973; (36):302–312.

9. Portnoy, H.D.; Schulte, R.R.; Fox, J.L.; Croissant, P.D.; Tripp, L. Antisiphon and reversible occlusion valves for shunting in hydrocephalus and preventing post-shunt subdural hematomas. J. Neurosurg. 1973 (38);729–738.

10. Epstein, F.J.; Fleischer, A.S.; Hochwald, G.M.; Ransohoff, J. Subtemporal craniectomy for recurrent shunt obstruction secondary to small ventricles. J. Neurosurg. 1974; (41):29–31.

11. Holness, R.O.; Hoffman, H.J.; Hendrick, E.B. Subtemporal decompression for the slit-ventricle syndrome after shunting in hydrocephalic children. Pediatr. Neurosurg. 1979; (5):137–144.

12. Hyde-Rowan, M.D.; Rekate, H.L.; Nulsen, F.E. Reexpansion of previously collapsed ventricles:The slit ventricle syndrome. J. Neurosurg. 1982; (56):536–539.

13. Rekate, H.L. Classification of slit-ventricle syndromes using intracranial pressure monitoring. Pediatr. Neurosurg. 1993; (19):15–20.

14. Khorasani, L.; Sikorski, C.W.; Frim, D.M. Lumbar CSF shunting preferentially drains the cerebral subarachnoid over the ventricular spaces: Implications for the treatment of slit ventricle syndrome. Pediatr. Neurosurg. 2004 (40):270–276.

15. Olson, S. The problematic slit ventricle syndrome. A review of the literature and proposed algorithm for treatment. Pediatr. Neurosurg. 2004; (40):264–269.

16. Rekate, H.L. Slit ventricle syndrome. Diagnosis and management. In Pediatric Hydrocephalus; Cinalli, G., Maxner, W.J., Sainte-Rose, C., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/ Heidelberg, Germany, 2004; pp. 335–349.
17. Rekate, H.L. Shunt-related headaches: The slit ventricle syndromes. Childs Nerv. Syst. 2008; (24):423–430.

18. Ros, B.; Iglesias, S.; Martín, A.; Carrasco, A.; Ibáñez, G.; Arráez, M.A. Shunt overdrainage syndrome: Review of the literature. Neurosurg. Rev. 2018; (41): 969–981.

19. Huang AP, Kuo LT, Lai DM, Yang SH, Kuo MF. Antisiphon device: a review of existing mechanisms and clinical applications to prevent overdrainage in shunted hydrocephalic patients. Biomed J 2022;45 (1):95-108.

20. Hsu CH, Chou SC, Yang SH, Shih MC, Kuo MF. Using a burr hole valve prevents proximal shunt failure in infants and toddlers. Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics. 2019; (24): 315–322.

21. Decq P, Barat JL, Duplessis E, Leguerinel C, Gendrault P, Keravel Y. Shunt failure in adult hydrocephalus: flow-controlled shunt versus differential pressure shunts—a cooperative study in 289 patients. Surgical Neurology. 1995; (43): 333–339.

22. Buxton N, Punt J. Subtemporal decompression: the treatment of noncompliant ventricle syndrome. Neurosurgery. 1999; (44):513–519.

23. Obana WG, Raskin NH, Cogen PH, Szymanski JA, Edwards MSB. Antimigraine Treatment for Slit Ventricle Syndrome. Neurosurgery. 1990; (27): 760–763.

24. Linder M, Diehl J, Sklar FH. Subtemporal decompressions for shunt-dependent ventricles: mechanism of action. Surgical Neurology. 1983; (19): 520–523.

25. Ros B, Iglesias S, Linares J, Cerro L, Casado J, Arráez M.A. Shunt Over drainage: Reappraisal of the Syndrome and Proposal for an Integrative Model. J Clin Med 2021; (17); 10(16):3620.

26. Iglesias, S, Ros, B, Martín, A, Carrasco, A, Segura, M, Delgado A, Rius F, Arráez M.A. Surgical outcome of the shunt: 15-year experience in a single institution. Childs Nerv. Syst 2016;(32):2377–2385.

27. Liniger P, Marchand S, Kaiser G.L. Flow control versus antisiphon valves: Late results concerning slit ventricles and slit ventricle syndrome. Eur. J. Pediatr. Surg. 2003; (13) (Suppl. S1), S3–S6.

28. Thomale U.W, Gebert A.F, Haberl H, Schulz M. Shunt survival rates by using the adjustable differential pressure valve combined with a gravitational unit (pro-GAV) in pediatric neurosurgery. Childs Nerv. Syst. 2013; (29): 425–431.

29. Kraemer M.R, Koueik J, Rebsamen S, Hsu D.A, Salamat M.S, Luo S, Saleh S, Brag T.M, Iskandar B.J. Overdrainage-related ependymal bands: a postulated cause of proximal shunt obstruction. J Neurosurg Pediatr 2018(1); 22(5):567-577.

30. Koueik J, Kraemer M.R, Hsu D, Rizk E, Zea R, Haldeman C, Iskandar B.J. A 12-year single-center retrospective analysis of antisiphon devices to prevent proximal ventricular shunt obstruction for hydrocephalus. J Neurosurg Pediatr 2019; (6); 1-10.

31. Beuriat P-A, Puget S, Cinalli G, Blauwblomme T, Beccaria K, Zerah M, Sainte-Rose C. Hydrocephalus treatment in children: long-term outcome in 975 consecutive patients. J Neurosurg Pediatr 2017; 20(1):10-18.

32. Portnoy H.D, Schulte R.R, Fox J.L, Croissant P.D, Tripp L. Anti-siphon and reversible occlusion valves for shunting in hydrocephalus and preventing post-shunt subdural hematomas. J Neurosurg 1973; 38 (6):729-38.

33. Browd SR, Gottfried ON, Ragel BT, Kestle JR. Failure of cerebrospinal fluid shunts: part II: overdrainage, loculation, and abdominal complications. Pediatr Neurol. 2006; 34 (3): 171-6.

34. Browd SR, Ragel BT, Gottfried ON, Kestle JR. Failure of cerebrospinal fluid shunts: part I: Obstruction and mechanical failure. Pediatr Neurol 2006; 34(2):83-92.

35. Drake J.M, Kestle J.R, Milner R, Cinalli G, Boop F, Piatt Jr.J, Haines S, Schiff S.J, Cochrane D.D, Steinbok P, MacNeil N. Randomized trial of cerebrospinal fluid shunt valve design in pediatric hydrocephalus. Neurosurgery1998; 43(2):294-303.

36. Rekate H.L. The slit ventricle syndrome: advances based on technology and understanding. Pediatr Neurosurg 2004; 40(6):259-63.

37. Drake J.M, Kulkarni A.V, Kestle J. Endoscopic third ventriculostomy versus ventriculoperitoneal shunt in pediatric patients: a decision analysis. Childs Nerv Syst 2009; 25(4):467-72.

38. Baru J.S, D A Bloom, K Muraszko, C E Koop. John Holter's shunt. J Am Coll Surg 2001; 192(1):79-85.

39. Mangano FT, Menendez JA, Habrock T, Narayan P, Leonard JR, Park TS, et al: Early programmable valve malfunctions in pediatric hydrocephalus. J Neurosurg 2005; 103(6 Suppl):501-7.

40. Pollack I.F, A L Albright, P D Adelson. A randomized, controlled study of a programmable shunt valve versus a conventional valve for patients with hydrocephalus. Hakim-Medos Investigator Group. Neurosurgery 1999; 45(6):1399-408.