Advertisement

Child's Nervous System

, Volume 34, Issue 9, pp 1683–1689 | Cite as

Endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV) and ventriculoperitoneal shunt (VPS) in non-communicating hydrocephalus (NCH): comparison of outcome profiles in Nigerian children

  • Enoch Ogbonnaya Uche
  • Chukwuemeka Okorie
  • Izuchukwu Iloabachie
  • Dubem S. Amuta
  • Nkechinyere J. Uche
Original Paper
  • 54 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV) and ventriculo-peritoneal shunt (VPS) although recognized surgical options for non-communicating hydrocephalus have debatable applications.

Objective

We analysed a prospective cohort of age-matched children with non-tumor, non-communicating hydrocephalus treated with the two surgical modalities using clinically measurable parameters.

Methods

A single institution analysis of age-matched patients with non-communicating hydrocephalus treated with VPS or ETV over a 3-year period. Occipitofrontal circumference (OFC), milestone, shunt independence as well as complication profiles of patients were recorded and analysed. Mean follow-up period was 1.27 ± 0.19 years 95%CI). Data analysis were performed using SPSS version 15, Chicago, IL. Statistical tests were set at 95% significance level.

Results

Fifty-five patients were enrolled, 25 patients had ETV, while 30 had VPS. Mean age was 2.3 ± 0.7 years (95% CI) with a range of 3 months to 4.5 years. Aqueductal stenosis was the most common indication. OFC profile decline was significant among the VPS group when compared with ETV group at 3 months follow-up (χ2 = 7.59, df = 1, p < 0.05). There was no difference among the two treatment groups χ2 = 2.47, df = 1, p > 0.05) in milestone profile. Thirteen percent of VPS, compared to (4%) ETV patients, had sepsis (χ2 = 4.59, df = 1 p < 0.05). Ninety-two percent of ETV patients remained shunt free, while 80% of shunted patients achieved ETV independence. Two patients died among the VPS group compared to one patient in the ETV group.

Conclusion

VPS compared to ETV is associated with an earlier milestone and OFC response. ETV is associated with lower rates of sepsis and mortality.

Keywords

Endoscopic third ventriculostomy Ventriculoperitoneal shunt Non-communicating hydrocephalus Milestones Outcome 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

There are no conflicts of interest. The authors have no personal, financial or institutional interest in the materials or devices described in this article.

Disclosures

The abstract of this article was in part presented during the Nigerian Surgical Research meeting in December 2014 and was published as part of the proceedings of the Conference in the Nigerian Journal of Surgery, Enugu abstracts [21]. It was also presented as a digital poster (Absract number: 751) at the neurosurgery forum on 29 September 2015, during the 2015 CNS annual meeting in New Orleans Louisianna, USA.

References

  1. 1.
    Aschoff A, Kremer P, Hashemi B, Kunze S (1999) The scientific history of hydrocephalus and its treatment. Neurosurg Rev 22(2–3):67–93 discussion 94-5CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Drake JM, Kulkarni AV, Kestle J (2009) Endoscopic third ventriculostomy versus ventriculoperitoneal shunt in pediatric patients: a decision analysis. Childs Nerv Syst 25:467–472CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fernell E, Hagberg B, Hagberg G, Hult G, von Wendt L (1988) Epidemiology of infantile hydrocephalus in Sweden: a clinical follow-up study in children born at term. Neuropediatrics 19(3):135–142CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Furlanetti LL, Santos MV, de Oliveira RS (2012) The success of endoscopic third ventriculostomy in children: analysis of prognostic factors. Pediatr Neurosurg 48:352–359CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gallo P, Szathmari A, De Biasi S, Mottolese C (2010) Endoscopic third ventriculostomy in obstructive infantile hydrocephalus:remarks about the so called ‘unsuccessful cases’. Pediatr Neurosurg 46(6):435–441CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grietz D (2007) Paradigm shift in hydrocephalus research in legacy of Dandy’s pioneering work: rationale for third ventriculostomy in communicating hydrocephalus. Childs Nerv Syst 23(5):487–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    He ZN, An CX, Zhang XD, Li Q (2015) The efficacy analysis of endoscopic third ventriculostomy in infantile hydrocephalus. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 57:119–122CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hirsch JF (1992) Surgery of hydrocephalus: past, present and future. Acta Neurochir 116(2):155–160CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Idowu OE, Falope LO, Idowu A (2009) Outcome of endoscopic third ventriculostomy and Chhabra shunt system in noncommunicating non-tumor childhood hydrocephalus. J Pediatr Neurosci 4(2):66–69CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Koch-Wiewrodt D, Wagner W (2006) Success and failure of endoscopic third ventriculostomy in young infants: are there different age distributions. Childs Nerv Syst 22(12):1537–1541CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kulkarni AV, Drake JM, Mallucci CL, Sgouros S, Roth J, Constantini A et al (2009) Endoscopic third ventriculostomy in the treatment of childhood hydrocephalus. J Pediatr 155(2):254–259CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kulkarni AV, Drake JM, Kestle JR, Mallucci CL, Sgourous S, Constantini S, Canadian Pediatric Neurosurgery Study Group (2010) Endoscopic third ventriculostomy vs cerebrospinal fluid shunt in the treatment of hydrocephalus in children: a propensity score-adjusted analysis. Neurosurgery 67(3):588–593CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lutz BR, Venkataraman P, Browd SR (2013) New and improved ways to treat hydrocephalus: pursuit of a smart shunt. Surg Neurol Int 4(Suppl 1):S38–S50CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ndoumbe A, Motah M, Takongmo S (2015) Endoscopic third ventriculostomy for non- tumor obstructive hydrocephalus in children under two years of age. OJMN 5:100–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ohaegbulam SC, Saddeqi N (1979) Congenital malformations of the central nervous system in Enugu, Nigeria. East Afr Med J 56(10):509–513PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pople IK (2002) Hydrocephalus and shunts: what the neurologist should know. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 73:i17–i22CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Singh D, Gupta V, Goyal A, Singh H, Sinha S, Singh A, Kumar S (2003) Endoscopic third ventriculostomy in obstructed hydrocephalus. Neurol India 51:39–42PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sipek A, Gregor V, Horacek J (2007) Birth defects in the Czech Republic in the period 1961–2005. Ceska Gynecokol 72(3):185–191Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Uche EO, Ozor II (2011) Brain endoscopy in a tertiary hospital in southeast Nigeria: initial results. OJM 23(1–4):44–48Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Uche EO, Onyia E, Mezue UC, Okorie E, Ozor II, Chikani MC (2013) Determinants and outcomes of venriculoperioneal shunt infections in Enugu, Nigeria. Pediatr Neurosurg 49(2):75–80CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Uche EO, Okorie E, Ajuzieogu O, Iloabachie I, Onyia EE, Uche NJ (2015) Endoscopic third ventriculostomy and ventriculoperitoneal shunt in non-communicating hydrocephalus: comparison of outcome profiles in children treated at a tertiary hospital in Nigeria. Niger J Surg (abstract) 21(2):159–163Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Uche EO, Okorie E, Emejulu J, Ajuzieogu O, Uche NJ (2016) Challenges and outcome of cranial neuroendoscopic surgery in a resource constrained developing African country. Niger J Clin Pract 19:811–815.  https://doi.org/10.4103/1119-3077.183236 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Venkataramana NK (2011 Oct) Hydrocephalus Indian scenario—a review. J Pediatr Neurosci 6(Suppl1):S11–S22CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Warf BC (2005) Comparison of endoscopic third ventriculostomy alone and combined with choroid plexus cauterization in infants younger than 1 year of age: a prospective study in 550 African children. J Neurosurg 103(6 Suppl):475–481PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Warf BC, Mugamba J, Kulkarni AV (2010 Feb) Endoscopic third ventriculostomy in the treatment of childhood hydrocephalus in Uganda: report of a scoring system that predicts success. J Neurosurg Pediatr 5(2):143–148CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yadav YR, Jaiswal S, Adam N, Basoor A, Jain G (2006) Endoscopic third ventriculostomy in infants. Neurol India 57:161–163Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yadav YR, Parihar V, Pande S, Namdev H, Agarwal M (2012) Endoscopic third ventriculostomy. J Neurosci Rural Pract 3(2):163–173CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zohdi AZ, El Damaty AM, Aly KB, El Refaee EA (2013) Success rates of endoscopic third ventriculostomy in infants below six months of age with congenital obtsructive hydrocephalus (a preliminary study of eight cases). Asian J Neurosurg 8(3):147–152CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Enoch Ogbonnaya Uche
    • 1
  • Chukwuemeka Okorie
    • 1
  • Izuchukwu Iloabachie
    • 1
  • Dubem S. Amuta
    • 1
  • Nkechinyere J. Uche
    • 2
  1. 1.Neurosurgery Unit, Department of SurgeryUNTH, University of Nigeria Teaching HospitalEnuguNigeria
  2. 2.Department of OphthalmologyUNTHEnuguNigeria

Personalised recommendations