The search result changed since you submitted your search request. Documents might be displayed in a different sort order.
  • search hit 4 of 164
Back to Result List

Comparison of long-term functionality and revision rate of two different shunt valves in pediatric and adult patients

  • Background: The most frequent therapy of hydrocephalus is the implantation of ventriculoperitoneal shunts for diverting cerebrospinal fluid from the ventricles into the peritoneum. We compared two adjustable valves, the proGAV and proGAV 2.0, for complications which resulted in revision operations. Methods: Four hundred patients who underwent primary shunt implantation between 2014 and 2020 were analyzed for overall revision rate, one-year revision rate, revision free survival and overall survival observing patient age group, gender, etiology of hydrocephalus, implantation site, prior diversion of cerebrospinal fluid and cause of revision. Results: All data were available of all 400 patients (female/male 208/192). Overall, 99 patients underwent revision surgery after primary implantation. ProGAV valve was implanted in 283 patients, proGAV 2.0 in 117 patients. There was no significant difference between the two shunt valves concerning revision rate (p=0.8069), one-year revision rate (p=0.9077), revision free survival (p=0.6921) and overall survival (p=0.3232). Furthermore, regarding one-year revision rate, we observed no significant difference between the two shunt valves in pediatric patients (40.7% vs 27.6%; p=0.2247). Revision operation had to be performed more frequently in pediatric patients (46.6% vs 24.8%; p=0.0093) with a significant higher number of total revisions with proGAV than proGAV 2.0 (55.9% vs. 27.6%; p=0.0110) most likely due to longer follow up in the proGAV -group. Conclusion: According to the target variables we analyzed, aside from lifetime revision rate in pediatric patients there is no significant difference between the two shunt valves. From our subjective point of view, implantation of the newer proGAV 2.0 valve is preferable due to higher adjustment comfort for both patients and physicians.

Download full text files

Export metadata

Additional Services

Share in Twitter Search Google Scholar
Metadaten
Author:Peter BaumgartenORCiDGND, Lewin-Caspar Busse, Nazife DincORCiDGND, Jürgen KonczallaORCiDGND, Christian SenftORCiDGND, Marcus Alexander CzabankaORCiDGND, Thomas Michael FreimanORCiDGND
URN:urn:nbn:de:hebis:30:3-784498
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bas.2022.101566
ISSN:2772-5294
Parent Title (English):Brain and Spine
Publisher:Elsevier
Place of publication:Amsterdam
Document Type:Conference Proceeding
Language:English
Date of Publication (online):2022/10/17
Date of first Publication:2022/10/17
Publishing Institution:Universitätsbibliothek Johann Christian Senckenberg
Contributing Corporation:European Association of Neurosurgical Societies (2022 : Belgrad)
Release Date:2023/10/25
Volume:2
Issue:Supplement 2, 101566
Article Number:101566
Page Number:1
HeBIS-PPN:513103236
Institutes:Medizin
Dewey Decimal Classification:6 Technik, Medizin, angewandte Wissenschaften / 61 Medizin und Gesundheit / 610 Medizin und Gesundheit
Sammlungen:Universitätspublikationen
Licence (German):License LogoCreative Commons - CC BY-NC-ND - Namensnennung - Nicht kommerziell - Keine Bearbeitungen 4.0 International