TY  - CONF
A1  - Baumgarten, Peter
A1  - Busse, Lewin-Caspar
A1  - Dinc, Nazife
A1  - Konczalla, Jürgen
A1  - Senft, Christian
A1  - Czabanka, Marcus Alexander
A1  - Freiman, Thomas Michael
T1  - Comparison of long-term functionality and revision rate of two different shunt valves in pediatric and adult patients
T2  - Brain and Spine
N2  - 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.
Y1  - 2022
UR  - http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/78449
UR  - https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:hebis:30:3-784498
SN  - 2772-5294
VL  - 2
IS  - Supplement 2,  101566
PB  - Elsevier
CY  - Amsterdam
ER  -