Investigation with a larger number of patients is warrantedto assess whether delayed shunting might reduce the risk of shunt infection.
📌 3 Key Takeaways
🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:AIM: To determine whether the timing of shunt placement affects shunt infection rate in hydrocephalus associated withmyelomeningocele (MMC).MATERIAL and METHODS: The cases of 67 consecutive patients who underwent MMC repair and ventriculoperitoneal (VP)shunt placement between 2010 and 2017 were analyzed, retrospectively.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Shunt infection rates were compared for three differentapproaches: simultaneous shunting (MMC repair and shunting in the same session; n=22), early shunting (shunting in the first weekafter MMC repair; n=21), and delayed shunting (shunting in the second week after MMC repair; n=24).RESULTS: Three patients in the simultaneous shunting group (13.6%) and two patients in the early shunting group (9.5%) developedshunt infection, whereas no such infections occurred in the delayed shunting group (p>0.05).CONCLUSION: While the shunt infection rates for the simultaneous, early and delayed shunting groups were not significant, it is ofinterest that no shunt infections occurred in the delayed shunting group.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Investigation with a larger number of patients is warrantedto assess whether delayed shunting might reduce the risk of shunt infection.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2010 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters
Özet
AIM: To determine whether the timing of shunt placement affects shunt infection rate in hydrocephalus associated withmyelomeningocele (MMC).MATERIAL and METHODS: The cases of 67 consecutive patients who underwent MMC repair and ventriculoperitoneal (VP)shunt placement between 2010 and 2017 were analyzed, retrospectively. Shunt infection rates were compared for three differentapproaches: simultaneous shunting (MMC repair and shunting in the same session; n=22), early shunting (shunting in the first weekafter MMC repair; n=21), and delayed shunting (shunting in the second week after MMC repair; n=24).RESULTS: Three patients in the simultaneous shunting group (13.6%) and two patients in the early shunting group (9.5%) developedshunt infection, whereas no such infections occurred in the delayed shunting group (p>0.05).CONCLUSION: While the shunt infection rates for the simultaneous, early and delayed shunting groups were not significant, it is ofinterest that no shunt infections occurred in the delayed shunting group. Investigation with a larger number of patients is warrantedto assess whether delayed shunting might reduce the risk of shunt infection.
🔖
Cite This Article
GURBUZ, M. S., YUKSEL, M. O. (2020). The Association between the Timing of Shunt Placement and Shunt Infection in Hydrocephalus Associated with Myelomeningocele. Turkish Neurosurgery, Cilt: 30 - Sayı: 1, 94–98. https://ajindex.com/articles/395173
Arslan M, Eseoglu M, Gudu BO, Demir I, Kozan A, Gokalp A, Sosuncu E, Kiymaz N: Comparison of simultaneous shunting to delayed shunting in infants with myelomeningocele in terms of shunt infection rate. Turk Neurosurg 3:397-402, 2011 2. Bell WO, Arbit E, Fraser RA: One-stage myelomeningocele closure and ventriculoperitoneal shunt placement. Surg Neurol 27:233-236, 1987 3. Brau RH, Rodriguez R, Ramirez MV, Gonzales R, Martinez V: Experience in the management of myelomeningocele in Puerto Rico. J Neurosurg 72:726-731, 1990 4. Caldarelli M, Di Rocco C, La Marca F: Shunt complications in the first postoperative year in children with meningomyelocele. Child Nerv Syst 12:748-754, 1996 5. Chadduck WM, Reding DL: Experience with simultaneous ventriculo-peritoneal shunt placement and myelomeningocele repair. J Pediatr Surg 23:913-916, 1988 6. Chakraborty A, Crimmins D, Hayward R, Thompson D: Toward reducing shunt placement rates in patients with myelomeningocele. J Neurosurg Pediatr 5:361-365, 2008 7. Dupepe EB, Hopson B, Johnston JM, Rozzelle CJ, Jerry Oakes W, Blount JP, Rocque BG: Rate of shunt revision as a function of age in patients with shunted hydrocephalus due to myelomeningocele. Neurosurg Focus 5:E6, 2016 8. Ersahin Y, Mutluer S, Guzelbag E: Cerebrospinal fluid shunt infections. J Neurosurg Sci 38:161-165, 1994 9. Gamache FW Jr: Treatment of hydrocephalus in patients with meningomyelocele or encephalocele: A recent series. Childs Nerv Syst 11:487-488, 1995 10. Hubbalah MY, Hoffman HJ: Early repair of myelomeningocele and simultaneous insertion of ventriculoperitoneal shunt: Technique and results. Neurosurgery 20:21-23, 1987 11. Kulkarni AV, Drake JM, Lamberti-Pasculli M: Cerebrospinal fluid shunt infection: A prospective study of risk factors. J Neurosurg 94:195–201, 2001 12. Machado HR, Santos de Oliveira R: Simultaneous repair of myelomeningocele and shunt insertion. Childs Nerv Syst 2:107-109, 2004 13. Margaron FC, Poenaru D, Bransford R, Albright AL: Timing of ventriculoperitoneal shunt insertion following spina bifida closure in Kenya. Childs Nerv Syst 11:1523-1528, 2010 14. McLone DG, Dias MS: Complications of myelomeningocele closure. Pediatr Neurosurg 17:267-273, 1991 15. Miller PD, Pollack IF, Pang D, Albright AL: Comparison of simultaneous versus delayed ventriculoperitoneal shunt insertion in children undergoing myelomeningocele repair. J Child Neurol 11:370-372, 1996 16. Oktem IS, Menku A, Ozdemir A: When should ventriculoperitoneal shunt p