Child's Nervous System

, Volume 12, Issue 12, pp 748–754 | Cite as

Shunt complications in the first postoperative year in children with meningomyelocele

  • M. Caldarelli
  • C. Di Rocco
  • F. La Marca
Original Paper

Abstract

The authors analyze the incidence of early mechanical and infective CSF shunt complications and various factors that might be correlated with the incidence in a series of 170 children affected by hydrocephalus and meningomyelocele (MM), with the aim of finding specific risk factors related to this particular type of hydrocephalus. Factors investigated for correlation with CSF shunt malfunction are the following: level of the spinal malformation, age of the patient at MM repair, age at diagnosis of hydrocephalus, degree of the ventricular dilatation, age at CSF shunt implantation, modality of the surgical procedure, characteristics of CSF at operation. In the first postoperative year following CSF shunting, 45.9% of the patients presented one shunt malfunction, three-quarters of which were due to mechanical causes, and one quarter to infection. Age of the patient at diagnosis of hydrocephalus and at CSF shunt operation did not significantly influence shunt patency, nor did the surgical modality (programmed vs emergency procedure). On the other hand, MM level did influence the outcome of CSF shunting: a higher percentage of malfunctions (and in particular of infective complications) was observed among the patients with “high level” MMs than in the group with more caudal location of the spinal defect. Similarly, the degree of ventricular dilatation correlated with the incidence of complications (more severe ventricular dilatation was associated with the highest incidence of complications). The order in which MM repair and CSF shunting were carried out and the age of the patients at MM repair did not affect the occurrence of mechanical complications, whereas they had a significant effect on the incidence of infective complications. In fact, the rate of overall complications, and of infective complications in particular, was proportional the age at MM repair. Furthermore, the group of children who underwent to MM repair and CSF shunting simultaneously scored the lowest percentage of complications, although these were mainly infections; the highest incidence of complications (and in particular of infective ones) was observed in the children who underwent CSF shunting first. The most striking correlation, however, was found with the characteristics of CSF. While normal CSF values correlated with an overall incidence of complications of 39.2%, abnormal CSF values were correlated with a rate of complications of 90.9%; in particular, the rates of infective complications were 2.7% and 77.3%, respectively. On the grounds of these observations a protocol is proposed of temporary CSF external drainage in children requiring prompt relief of increased intracranial pressure but at risk for the presence of a leaking spinal defect or of a MM left unrepaired for more than 48 h.

Key words

Meningomyelocele Hydrocephalus CSF shunt complications CSF infection 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bierbrauer KS, Storr BB, McLone DG, Tomita T, Dauser R (1990–91) A propective randomized study of shunt function and infections as a function of shunt placement. Pediatr Neurosci 16:287–291Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cerda M, Basauri L (1980) Isoelectric focusing of cerebrospinal fluid proteins in children with nontumoral hydrocephalus. Child's Brain 7:169–181Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chadduck WM, Reding DL (1988) Experience with simultaneous ventriculoperitoneal shunt placement and myelomeningocele repair. J Pediatr Surg 23:913–916Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Choux M, Genitori L, Lang D, Lena G (1992) Shunt implantation: reducing the incidence of shunt infection. J Neurosurg 77:875–880Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dallacasa P, Dappozzo A, Galassi E, Sandri F, Cacchi G, Masi M (1995) Cerebrospinal fluid shunt infections in infants. Child's Nerv Syst 11:643–649Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Di Rocco C, Rende M (1986) Mechanisms and pathophysiology of hydrocephalus accompanying Chiari II malformation. In: McLaurin R (ed) Spina bifida: a multidisciplinary approach. Praeger, New York, pp 189–194Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Di Rocco C, Caldarelli M, Velardi F (1981) Idrocefalo e mielomeningocele. Riv Ital Pediatr 7:109–114Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Di Rocco C, Ceddia A, Iannelli A, Lauretti L (1991) Surgical outcome of neonatal hydrocephalus. In: Matsumoto S, Tamaki N (eds) Hydrocephalus. Pathogenesis and treatment. Springer, New York Berlin Heidelberg, pp 546–551Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Di Rocco C, Marchese E, Velardi F (1994) A survey of the first complication of newly implanted CSF shunt devices for the treatment of nontumoral hydrocephalus. Child's Nerv Syst 10:321–327Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eckstein HB, Macnab GH (1966) Myelomeningocele and hydrocephalus: the impact of modern treatment. Lancet I:842–845Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Epstein NE, Rosenthal AD, Zito J, Osipoff M (1985) Shunt placement and myelomeningocele repair: simultaneous vs sequential shunting. Review of 12 cases. Child's Nerv Syst 1: 145–147Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Erşahin Y, Mutluer S, Guzelbag E (1994) Cerebrospinal fluid shunt infections. J Neurosurg Sci 38:161–165Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gamache FW (1995) Treatment of hydrocephalus in patients with meningomyelocele or encephalocele: a recent series. Child's Nerv Syst 11:487–488Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hemmer R (1973) Meningoceles and myeloceles. (Progress in neurological surgery, vol 4) Karger, Basel, pp 192–226Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hubballah MY, Hoffman HJ (1987) Early repair of myelomeningocele and simultaneous insertion of ventriculoperitoneal shunt: technique and results. Neurosurgery 20:21–23Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hurley AD, Laatsch LK, Dorman C (1983) Comparison of spina bifida, hydrocephalic patients and matched controls on neuropsychological tests. Z Kinderchir 38 [Suppl II]:116–118Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Keucher TR, Mealey J (1979) Long term results after ventriculoatrial and ventriculoperitoneal shunting for infantile hydrocephalus. J Neurosurg 50:179–186Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kuwamura K, Matsumoto S (1985) Treatment for hydrocephalus in myelomeningocele children. Pediatr Surg 17:367–373Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liptak GS, McDonald JV (1986) Ventriculoperitoneal shunts in children: factors affecting shunt survival. Pediatr Neurosci 12:289–293Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liptak GS, Masiulis BS, McDonald JV (1985) Ventricular shunt survival in children with neural tube defects. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 74:113–117Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lorber J (1971) Results of treatment of myelomeningocele. An analysis of 524 unselected cases with special reference to possible selection for treatment. Dev Med Child Neurol 13:279–303Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mapstone TB, Rekate HL, Nulsen FE, Dixon MS, Glaser N, Jaffe M (1984) Relationship of CSF shunting and IQ in children with myelomeningocele: a retrospective analysis. Child's Brain 11:112–118Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    McLone DG (1979) Effect of complications on intellectual function in 173 children with myelomeningocele. Child's Brain 5:561–567Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    McLone DG, Czyzewski D, Raimondi AJ, Sommers RC (1982) Central nervous system infections as a limiting factor in the intelligence of children with myelomeningocele. Pediatrics 70:338–342Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mealey J, Gilmor RL, Bubb MP (1982) The prognosis of hydrocephalus overt at birth. J Neurosurg 57:378–383Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nagasaka M, Tanaka Y, Yamada H (1989) Long-term follow-up results of infants with myelomeningocele. Nerv Syst Child (Tokyo) 14:95–101Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Piatt JH, Carlson CV (1993) A search for determinants of cerebrospinal fluid shunt survival: retrospective analysis of a 14-year institutional experience. Pediatr Neurosurg 19:233–242PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rekate HL (1989) To shunt or not to shunt: hydrocephalus and dysraphism. Clin Neurosurg [Suppl] 593–607Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sainte-Rose C (1993) Shunt obstruction: a preventable complication? Pediatr Neurosurg 19:156–164Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Shurtleff DB, Christie D, Foltz EL (1971) Ventriculo-auriculostomy-associated infection: a 12 years study. J Neurosurg 35:686–694Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Shurtleff DB, Kronmal R, Foltz EL (1975) Follow-up comparison of hydrocephalus with and without myelomeningocele. J Neurosurg 42:61–68Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Stark GD, Drummond MB, Poneprasert S, Robarts FH (1974) Primary ventriculo-peritoneal shunts in treatment of hydrocephalus associated with myelomeningocele. Arch Dis Child 49:112–117Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Stein SC, Schut L (1979) Hydrocephalus in myelomeningocele. Child's Brain 5:413–419Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tashiro Y, Kikuchi H (1993) Clinical study of hydrocephalus associated with spina bifida cystica. Curr Treat Hydroceph (Tokyo) 3:50–55Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Caldarelli
    • 1
  • C. Di Rocco
    • 1
  • F. La Marca
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of NeurosurgeryCatholic University Medical SchoolRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations