Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An external validation of the ETVSS for both short-term and long-term predictive adequacy in 104 pediatric patients

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Child's Nervous System Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This study aims to provide external validation of the “Endoscopic Third Ventriculostomy Success Score (ETVSS)” for both short-term and long-term predictive adequacy.

Methods

Between 1998 and 2007, we collected clinical follow-up data (after 6 and 36 months) of all 104 hydrocephalic children (<18 years of age) treated by endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV) in our hospital. Predictive adequacy of ETVSS for 6- and 36-month periods was tested by means of an unpaired t test, Hosmer–Lemeshow “goodness-of- fit” test, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve.

Results

Mean follow-up was 73.4 months. For both the short-term (6 months) and the long-term (36 months) periods, the mean predicted probability of ETV for the patients with successful ETV treatment was significantly higher than in the patients with failed ETV treatment. The areas under the curve for the short- and long-term periods were, respectively, 0.82 (95 % CI 0.71–0.92) and 0.73 (95 % CI 0.62–0.84). For patients with moderate ETVSS (50–70), the median age at first ETV was significantly higher for patients with successful ETV for both short- and long-term periods.

Conclusion

In hydrocephalic children, the ETVSS is a useful tool for prediction of outcome after ETV treatment. The ETVSS is more adequate in predicting short-term than long-term success. In our population, it is suggested that success rate for patients with moderate ETVSS could be improved if more weight is attributed to age at first ETV.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Baldauf J, Oertel J, Gaab MR, Schroeder HW (2007) Endoscopic third ventriculostomy in children younger than 2 years of age. Childs Nerv Syst 23:623–626

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bouras T, Sgouros S (2011) Complications of endoscopic third ventriculostomy. J Neurosurg Pediatr 7(Bouras T, Sgouros S):643–649

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. de Ribaupierre S, Rilliet B, Vernet O, Regli L, Villemure JG (2007) Third ventriculostomy vs ventriculoperitoneal shunt in pediatric obstructive hydrocephalus: results from a Swiss series and literature review. Childs Nerv Syst 23:527–533

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Di Rocco C, Massimi L, Tamburrini G (2006) Shunts vs endoscopic third ventriculostomy in infants: are there different types and/or rates of complications? A review. Childs Nerv Syst 22:1573–1589

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Drake JM (2007) Endoscopic third ventriculostomy in pediatric patients: the Canadian experience. Neurosurgery 60:816–881

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Drake J, Chumas P, Kestle J, Pierre-Kahn A, Vinchon M, Brown J, Pollack IF, Arai H (2006) Late rapid deterioration after endoscopic third ventriculostomy: additional cases and review of the literature. J Neurosurg 105:118–126

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Drake JM, Kulkarni AV, Kestle J (2009) Endoscopic third ventriculostomy versus ventriculoperitoneal shunt in pediatric patients: a decision analysis. Childs Nerv Syst 25:467–472

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Durnford AJ, Kirkham FJ, Mathad N, Sparrow OC (2011) Endoscopic third ventriculostomy in the treatment of childhood hydrocephalus: validation of a success score that predicts long-term outcome. J Neurosurg Pediatr 8:489–493

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Fabiano AJ, Doyle K, Grand W (2010) Delayed stoma failure in adult communicating hydrocephalus after initial successful treatment by endoscopic third ventriculostomy: case report. Neurosurgery 66:E1210–E1211

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Fani L, de Jong TH, Dammers R, van Veelen ML (2013) Endoscopic third ventriculocisternostomy in hydrocephalic children under 2 years of age: appropriate or not? A single-center retrospective cohort study. Childs Nerv Syst 29:419–423

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Feng H, Huang G, Liao X, Fu K, Tan H, Pu H, Cheng Y, Liu W, Zhao D (2004) Endoscopic third ventriculostomy in the management of obstructive hydrocephalus: an outcome analysis. J Neurosurg 100:626–633

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. García LG, López BR, Botella GI, Páez MD, da Rosa SP, Rius F, Sánchez MA (2012) Endoscopic Third Ventriculostomy Success Score (ETVSS) predicting success in a series of 50 pediatric patients. Are the outcomes of our patients predictable? Childs Nerv Syst 28:1157–1162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hellwig D, Giordano M, Kappus C (2012) Redo third ventriculostomy. World Neurosurg. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2012.02.006

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kadrian D, van Gelder J, Florida D, Jones R, Vonau M, Teo C, Stening W, Kwok B (2005) Long-term reliability of endoscopic third ventriculostomy. Neurosurgery 56:1271–1278

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kulkarni AV, Drake JM, Kestle JR, Mallucci CL, Sgouros S, Constantini S (2010) Endoscopic third ventriculostomy vs cerebrospinal fluid shunt in the treatment of hydrocephalus in children: a propensity score-adjusted analysis. Neurosurgery 67:588–593

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kulkarni AV, Drake JM, Kestle JR, Mallucci CL, Sgouros S, Constantini S (2010) Predicting who will benefit from endoscopic third ventriculostomy compared with shunt insertion in childhood hydrocephalus using the ETV success score. J Neurosurg Pediatr 6:310–315

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kulkarni AV, Drake JM, Mallucci CL, Sgouros S, Roth J, Constantini S (2009) Endoscopic third ventriculostomy in the treatment of childhood hydrocephalus. J Pediatr 155:254–259

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kulkarni AV, Riva-Cambrin J, Browd SR (2011) Use of the ETV success score to explain the variation in reported endoscopic third ventriculostomy success rates among published case series of childhood hydrocephalus. J Neurosurg Pediatr 7:143–146

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lipina R, Palecek T, Reguli S, Kovarova M (2007) Death in consequence of late failure of endoscopic third ventriculostomy. Childs Nerv Syst 23:815–819

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Naftel RP, Reed GT, Kulkarni AV, Wellons JC (2011) Evaluating the Children's Hospital of Alabama endoscopic third ventriculostomy experience using the Endoscopic Third Ventriculostomy Success Score: an external validation study. J Neurosurg Pediatr 8:494–501

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. O'Brien DF, Javadpour M, Collins DR, Spennato P, Mallucci CL (2005) Endoscopic third ventriculostomy: an outcome analysis of primary cases and procedures performed after ventriculoperitoneal shunt malfunction. J Neurosurg 103:393–400

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. O'Brien DF, Seghedoni A, Collins DR, Hayhurst C, Mallucci CL (2006) Is there an indication for ETV in young infants in aetiologies other than isolated aqueduct stenosis? Childs Nerv Syst 22:1565–1572

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Peretta P, Cinalli G, Spennato P, Ragazzi P, Ruggiero C, Aliberti F, Carlino C, Cianciulli E (2009) Long-term results of a second endoscopic third ventriculostomy in children: retrospective analysis of 40 cases. Neurosurgery 65:539–547

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Sacko O, Boetto S, Lauwers-Cances V, Dupuy M, Roux FE (2010) Endoscopic third ventriculostomy: outcome analysis in 368 procedures. J Neurosurg Pediatr 5:68–74

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Sgouros S, Kulkharni AV, Constantini S (2006) The International Infant Hydrocephalus Study: concept and rational. Childs Nerv Syst 22:338–345

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Siomin V, Weiner H, Wisoff J, Cinalli G, Pierre-Kahn A, Saint-Rose C, Abbott R, Elran H, Beni-Adani L, Ouaknine G, Constantini S (2001) Repeat endoscopic third ventriculostomy: is it worth trying? Childs Nerv Syst 17:551–555

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Sufianov AA, Sufianova GZ, Iakimov IA (2010) Endoscopic third ventriculostomy in patients younger than 2 years: outcome analysis of 41 hydrocephalus cases. J Neurosurg Pediatr 5:392–401

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Surash S, Chumas P, Bhargava D, Crimmins D, Straiton J, Tyagi A (2010) A retrospective analysis of revision endoscopic third ventriculostomy. Childs Nerv Syst 26:1693–1698

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Tuli S, Alshail E, Drake J (1999) Third ventriculostomy versus cerebrospinal fluid shunt as a first procedure in pediatric hydrocephalus. Pediatr Neurosurg 30:11–15

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurosurgery, University Medical Centre Groningen (UMCG), Hanzeplein 1, P.O. Box 30 001, 9700 RB, Groningen, the Netherlands

    G. E. Breimer, D. A. Sival, M. G. J. Brusse-Keizer & E. W. Hoving

Authors
  1. G. E. Breimer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. D. A. Sival
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. G. J. Brusse-Keizer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. E. W. Hoving
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. W. Hoving.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Breimer, G.E., Sival, D.A., Brusse-Keizer, M.G.J. et al. An external validation of the ETVSS for both short-term and long-term predictive adequacy in 104 pediatric patients. Childs Nerv Syst 29, 1305–1311 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-013-2122-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-013-2122-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation