Abstract
Endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV) is a well-established surgical procedure for hydrocephalus treatment, but there is sparse evidence on the optimal choice between flexible and rigid approaches. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare efficacy and safety profiles of both techniques in pediatrics and adults. A comprehensive search was conducted on PubMED, EMBASE, and Cochrane until 11/10/2019. Efficacy was evaluated comparing incidence of ETV failure, while safety was defined by the incidence of perioperative complications, intraoperative bleedings, and deaths. Random-effects models were used to pool the incidence. Out of 1365 studies, 46 case series were meta-analyzed, yielding 821 patients who underwent flexible ETV and 2918 who underwent rigid ETV, with an age range of [5 days–87 years]. Although flexible ETV had a higher incidence of failure in adults (flexible: 54%, 95%CI: 22–82% vs rigid: 20%, 95%CI: 22–82%) possibly due to confounding due to etiology in adults treated with flexible, a smaller difference was seen in pediatrics (flexible: 36%, pediatric: 32%). Safety profiles were acceptable for both techniques, with a certain degree of variability for complications (flexible 2%, rigid 18%) and death (flexible 1%, rigid 3%) in pediatrics as well as complications (rigid 9%, flexible 13%), death (flexible 4%, rigid 6%) and intra-operative bleeding events (rigid 6%, flexible 8%) in adults. No clear superiority in efficacy could be depicted between flexible and rigid ETV for hydrocephalus treatment. Safety profiles varied by age but were acceptable for both techniques. Well-designed comparative studies are needed to assess the optimal endoscopic treatment option for hydrocephalus.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV) is a well-established surgical procedure for the treatment of hydrocephalus. It consists in the opening of the floor of the third ventricle using different types of tools driven through the operative channel of an endoscope [18]. The first ever-reported ETV was conducted by William J Mixter in 1923; he successfully treated a case of non-communicating hydrocephalus using an uretheroscope [18]. Ten years later, Tracy Putnam developed the “ventriculoscope,” the first endoscope specifically designed to operate in cerebral ventricles. It included one optical glass rod and three grooves, one for the light source and two for the diathermy electrodes [18]. The design and the optic systems, as well as the available operative tools, were then progressively refined. In the 1970s, the British physicist Harold H Hopkins with his system of solid and cemented glass rod lenses surrounded by fiberoptic bundles, paved the way for both the modern rigid and flexible endoscopy [18]. In 1973, Takanori Fukushima was the first neurosurgeon to use a flexible endoscope to perform ventriculostomies with his refined “ventriculofiberscope” [18].
Rigid and flexible endoscopes are both currently used to perform third ventriculostomy, and each type has distinct advantages and drawbacks. Rigid endoscopes are more commonly used compared with their flexible counterparts because they generally produce higher quality images and allow for easier passing of instruments [4]. Their use, however, can be restricted by the size of ventricles and made difficult by the rigid linear nature of the rod lenses [4, 5, 16, 38]. Flexible endoscopes, on the other hand, have an added degree of mobility to help overcome the nonlinear ventricular anatomy. They have been used more frequently in children given their narrower diameter, but they generally present images of lower quality and a limited set of operative tools [4, 5, 22]. Interestingly, the published literature usually focuses on the nuances and outcomes of either rigid or flexible endoscopy alone; only one paper compared the two techniques in a comparative study design to assess the optimal choice of treatment [57]. To our knowledge, no meta-analysis has been conducted to compare efficacy and safety of rigid endoscopy versus flexible endoscopy in ETV.
As the two approaches present both risks and benefits, we decided to pool the available evidence and conduct a meta-analysis to compare efficacy and safety of flexible and rigid neuro-endoscopy in the performance of ETV in pediatric and adult populations.
Materials and methods
Search strategy and study selection
A comprehensive electronic search was conducted on PubMED, EMBASE, and Cochrane until November 10, 2019. The search was filtered for English language articles. Comprehensive search results were obtained using relevant MeSH terms, Emtree terms, and text words (Appendix 1). The duplicates were removed and data were exported into Covidence software for screening [17]. All the articles underwent two levels of screening (title/abstract and full-text) by six reviewers (BM, AP, AB, FS, SD, AA). Discrepancies were resolved by discussion or consulting senior authors (AB, RM, FS). Reasons for rejection were listed in accordance with the PRISMA checklist [26].
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Articles were included in our study if: they had participants suffering from hydrocephalus who underwent flexible endoscopic third ventriculostomy or rigid endoscopic third ventriculostomy; the study reported failure or reoperation rate in the procedure; the study was an observational study, randomized control trial, or case series of five or more patients diagnosed with hydrocephalus. Articles were excluded from our study if they were not in the English language or if they did not report on patients’ outcome and follow-up.
Data extraction
Studies included after full text screening had their data extracted by five authors (BM, AP, FS, SC, SD). Data were extracted for study characteristics (author, publication year, country of origin, study design and timing, and sample size), patients’ characteristics (average age, age category -pediatrics, adults-, type and etiology of hydrocephalus), and intervention characteristics (type of intervention and type of endoscope used). Efficacy or ETV failure was the primary outcome and was defined as patients requiring reoperations after ETV surgery which could either be a second ETV or shunt placement. Safety was assessed as a secondary outcome, evaluating incidence of complications including infection, intraventricular hemorrhage, neurological deficit, motor aphasia, ependymitis, sepsis, and CSF leak, among others, incidence of intra-operative bleeding (witnessed, controlled and reported by the operating surgeon), and incidence of death due to surgery. All the variables and outcomes were recorded for adults, pediatrics, and mixed (both pediatrics and adults) population. Number of events for failure and safety outcomes were recorded for each intervention.
Data analysis
Incidence measures were analyzed for categorical outcomes by using number of events and total sample size of outcome measures. Pooled effect estimates of incidence measures were analyzed by the random-effects model using the DerSimonian–Laird method [26]. Comprehensive meta-analysis software (CMA) version 3 was used to perform the statistical analyses. Unless otherwise specified, a two-sided p value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Heterogeneity assessment and analysis
The presence of heterogeneity was assessed using Cochrane Q statistic with a significance level of p < 0.10 [27]. Degree of heterogeneity among studies was determined using the I2 value [27]. Degree of heterogeneity was reported to be low, medium, and high with I2 values of 25, 50, and 75%, respectively [28]. All analyses were stratified by age categories (pediatric, adult, mixed). The p value comparing the subgroups was not derived as these would be highly confounded due to the nature of the included studies (non-comparative). An additional sensitivity analysis was done by removing low quality studies (< median score of 4) from all the analyses to assess the robustness of the findings.
Risk of bias assessment
Publication bias was assessed by Begg’s [9] test and the funnel plot was analyzed for visual determination of asymmetry if the assessed outcomes had at least 10 studies [26]. If presence of publication bias was confirmed, the trim and fill method was used to estimate the possible number of missing studies, which were then imputed to recalculate the new pooled effect estimate. As all the studies included in the analysis were case series, the quality of the studies was assessed by a questionnaire by Chan and Bhanushali [14]. The questionnaire assessed all studies based on whether their objective, protocol, inclusion and exclusion criteria, time interval, and patient enrollment were well defined and if the studies had a prospective collection of outcome data and a high follow-up. Each category had one point associated to it with the highest possible score of 8. Studies with higher scores on the questionnaire were assessed to be of better quality.
Results
Search results and characteristics
The electronic search yielded a total of 1365 studies [PubMed (743), EMBASE (602) and Cochrane (20)]. Of all imported studies, 1033 studies were screened and 46 case series [1,2,3, 6,7,8, 10,11,12,13, 15, 18,19,20,21, 23,24,25, 29, 30, 33,34,35, 37, 39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60] were used for the final meta-analysis (Fig. 1). The study timing for 39 studies was retrospective, while 7 studies were prospective. Patients in all age groups, from neonatal to geriatric population, were captured in the studies. The age range of the patients was 5 days–89 years and both naïve as well as previously shunted patients were included in the analysis. Out of the 46 case series with 3739 patients, 12 studies included adult population [7, 11, 13, 24, 25, 34, 35, 39, 40, 49, 50], 14 studies included pediatric population [1, 4, 7, 8, 12, 29, 33, 45, 46, 51, 58, 60], and 20 studies included patients from both groups [2, 10, 15, 19, 21, 23, 29, 30, 37, 41,42,43,44, 47, 52, 53, 55, 56, 59]. Regarding flexible ETV, 10 studies [23, 34, 35, 41, 42, 48, 52, 53, 57, 58] reported outcomes with a total of 821 patients, of whom 38 were adults, 126 were pediatric, and 657 were a mixture of adult and pediatric populations. For rigid ETV, 37 studies [1,2,3,4, 6,7,8, 10,11,12,13, 15, 18,19,20,21, 24, 25, 29, 30, 33, 37, 39, 40, 43,44,45,46,47, 49,50,51, 54,55,56,57, 59, 60] reported outcomes for a total of 2918 patients, of whom 1018 were adults, 747 were pediatric, and 1153 patients were a mixture of adult and pediatric populations. The types of hydrocephalus included were communicating hydrocephalus, non-communicating hydrocephalus, and normal pressure hydrocephalus (Table 1).
Efficacy (ETV failure) analysis
Flexible ETV showed a higher incidence of failure compared with rigid ETV in adults (54% vs 20%) (Fig. 2), while a smaller difference was found in pediatric patients (36% flexible vs 32% rigid) (Fig. 3) and mixed age patients (23% flexible vs 22% rigid) (Fig. 4) (Table 2).
Safety analysis (complications, bleeding, death)
Even though pooled results could not be compared with a statistical p value, it was worth exploring the trends resulting from our analysis. Flexible endoscopy presented an overall lower incidence of complications in pediatric (2 vs 18%) and mixed populations (8 vs 11%) but not in adults (13 vs 9%) when compared with the rigid approach (Table 3, Appendix 2). Flexible endoscopy presented an overall trend towards lower incidence of intra-operative bleeding in the mixed age category (4 vs 6%) but not in the adult category (8 vs 6%) when compared with the rigid approach. No studies conducted in pediatrics presented data on intra-operative bleeding (Table 3, Appendix 3). Flexible endoscopy reported lower incidence of death related to surgery in each age group (pediatric 1 vs 3%, adult 4 vs 6%, mixed 1.2 vs 1.7%) when compared with the rigid approach (Table 3, Appendix 4).
Quality score and bias assessment
The quality score for all studies ranged from 2 to 7 with a median score of 4 (IQR 4–5) (Appendix 5) on the Chan and Bhanushali questionnaire. Only 7 studies had a quality score < median [1,7,25,41,43,46,50,]. All studies had a well-defined study objective and clinically relevant outcomes. The majority of them had well-defined protocols and high follow-up rates. A few studies did not report explicit inclusion/exclusion criteria, time interval, and consecutive patient enrollment. Only seven studies had prospective data collection. Only the rigid endoscopy group with regard of the incidence of failure had more than 10 studies in their analysis for each of the adult and pediatric populations.
The funnel plot for the incidence of failure using the rigid endoscopy did not show obvious signs of asymmetry in adult population (Fig. 5a) or pediatric population (Fig. 5b), which suggested the absence of publication bias. The Begg’s test for each was not statistically significant, further confirming these findings (p value: 0.22 in adults; p value: 0.55 in pediatrics).
Sensitivity analysis
All of the above analyses did not materially change when we excluded studies with a quality score below the median level (< 4) (Appendices 6 and 7).
Discussion
The results of this meta-analysis suggested the presence of better efficacy of rigid endoscopy for ETV performance in adults. Safety profiles were mixed, while flexible endoscopy showed fewer complications in pediatrics and lower death events in pediatrics and adults, rigid endoscopy showed fewer complications and bleeding events in adults.
Regarding the efficacy profile, the results for the adult group were limited by the availability of only two studies on flexible endoscopy [34, 35]. It is particularly important to notice that one of these two studies focused on patients suffering from normal pressure hydrocephalus, which is known to have overall better outcomes when treated with a shunt [35], given the non-obstructive nature of the disease [36]. Therefore, the efficacy results were more suggestive of the fact that ETV was able to provide actual benefit to patients with hydrocephalus depending on its etiology, rather than providing evidence of an overall superiority of flexible or rigid approach over the other. The available literature has in fact already shown that both etiology and age are crucial factors to consider in the decision of treating hydrocephalus through a shunt or ETV, particularly in the pediatric population [31, 32].
In terms of safety, both flexible and rigid endoscopic approaches turned out to be procedures with acceptable peri-operative complication rates and very low occurrence of intra-operative bleeding and death. With regard to peri-operative complications, we could appreciate a trend towards a lower rate in the use of flexible approach, particularly in the pediatric population, but whether these comparisons would reach statistical significance is yet to be confirmed in future comparative studies. Flexible instruments are smaller and tend to be more delicate, which could at least in part explain our findings. With regard to intra-operative bleeding, the results need to be interpreted cautiously. The risk of bleeding depends also on the type of procedure performed during the endoscopy: a patient who undergoes ETV alone has a reduced risk of experience bleeding compared to a patient who undergoes ETV along with the biopsy or partial resection of a tumor or again the cauterization of the choroid plexus, regardless the type of approach. Interestingly, no pediatrics study reported occurrence of intra-operative bleeding, even in the presence of choroid plexus cauterization. Moreover, the ability of the flexible endoscope to reach areas out of range for the rigid one, for example, the posterior half of the third ventricle, allows the surgeon to perform deeper maneuvers, hence exposing them to the related inherent risks. Regardless the approach and age group, intraoperative mortality was found to be a very rare event, confirming both flexible and rigid endoscopy as safe techniques.
The I2 value for most groups was reported to be high. The degree of heterogeneity could be explained by to the presence of other co-variates such as the type of hydrocephalus (communicating, non-communicating, and normal pressure hydrocephalus) and its etiology; however, we could not assess their effect in the determination of the results due to lack of data. Notably, study quality was not found to be a source of heterogeneity as the results were not altered after excluding the low-quality studies.
In the interpretation of the results of this study, a number of limitations needs to be taken into account. First, the presence of reporting imbalance in the two techniques; out of all the studies that were included in the final analysis, only 10 studies reported data on flexible ETV, while 36 studies reported data on rigid ETV. The study design consisted of case series and no other comparative studies. Due to the lack of randomized control trials or comparative (analytical) observational studies in the meta-analysis, results need to be interpreted with caution due to possible confounding bias and other biases typically present in case series. Hence, the p values comparing the pooled point estimates between the 2 techniques were not derived. A major challenge faced while conducting the study was that only one study (Wang et.al) [57] had data for both intervention arms directly compared in a propensity-score matched cohort study, which were included as separate groups in this analysis. The study included only pediatrics and reported that rigid endoscopy had worse outcomes of failure as compared with flexible endoscopy, which was discordant with our findings. This begs the need for more well-designed studies in pediatrics and adults in order to accurately discern these differences. Notably, the type of hydrocephalus and its etiology could not be taken into account in the analysis due to lack of data, whereas in clinical practice, these two factors are part of the decision-making process in the choice of treatment strategy. Regardless, our aim was to evaluate efficacy and safety of two approaches that are both endoscopic in nature, therefore specific considerations about indications for alternative treatments as, for example, shunt diversion, were out the scope of this work.
Despite these limitations, our study had some strengths. To our knowledge, this was the first meta-analysis performed with the aim to evaluate efficacy and safety of flexible vs rigid ETV for the treatment of hydrocephalus. Another strength is the stratification of all safety and efficacy outcomes by age category, while shedding light on the available data in the entire neurosurgery literature and suggesting steps needed for better designed studies to address some uncertainties.
In conclusion, while our analysis could not depict a clear superiority in terms of efficacy with regard to flexible vs rigid endoscopy in the treatment of hydrocephalus, our results suggested that both approaches presented acceptable safety profiles, with some degree of variability between age categories. Moving forward, well-designed randomized controlled trials and comparative observational studies with larger sample sizes including patients of different ages, types, and etiology of hydrocephalus are needed in order to assess the optimal treatment options between rigid ETV and flexible ETV for hydrocephalus treatment.
Data availability
Not applicable.
Code availability
Not applicable.
References
Abbassy M, Aref K, Farhoud A, Hekal A. (2018) Outcome of single-trajectory rigid endoscopic third ventriculostomy and biopsy in the management algorithm of pineal region tumors: a case series and review of the literature. Childs Nerv Syst. 1–10.
Ali M, Usman M, Khan Z et al (2013) Endoscopic third ventriculostomy for obstructive hydrocephalus. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 23(5):338–341
Aranha A, Choudhary A, Bhaskar S, Gupta LN (2018) A Randomized Study Comparing Endoscopic Third Ventriculostomy versus Ventriculoperitoneal Shunt in the Management of Hydrocephalus Due to Tuberculous Meningitis. Asian J Neurosurg 13(4):1140–1147
Aref M, Martyniuk A, Nath S et al (2017) Endoscopic Third Ventriculostomy: Outcome Analysis of an Anterior Entry Point. World Neurosurg 104:554–559
Azab WA, Nasim K, Salaheddin W (2014) An overview of the current surgical options for pineal region tumors. Surg Neurol Int 5:39
Baldauf J, Oertel J, Gaab MR, Schroeder HW (2006) Endoscopic third ventriculostomy for occlusive hydrocephalus caused by cerebellar infarction. Neurosurgery 59(3):539–544
Baldauf J, Oertel J, Gaab MR, Schroeder HW (2007) Endoscopic third ventriculostomy in children younger than 2 years of age. Childs Nerv Syst 23(6):623–626
Baykan N, Isbir O, Gercek A et al (2005) Ten years of experience with pediatric neuroendoscopic third ventriculostomy: features and perioperative complications of 210 cases. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol 17(1):33–37
Begg CB, Mazumdar M (1994) Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics 50(4):1088–1101
Bisht A, Suri A, Bansal S et al (2014) Factors affecting surgical outcome of endoscopic third ventriculostomy in congenital hydrocephalus. J Clin Neurosci 21(9):1483–1489
Bouramas D, Paidakakos N, Sotiriou F et al (2012) Endoscopic third ventriculostomy in obstructive hydrocephalus: surgical technique and pitfalls. Acta Neurochir Suppl 113:135–139
Brusius CV, Cavalheiro S (2013) Endoscopic third ventriculostomy is a safe and effective procedure for the treatment of Blake’s pouch cyst. Arq Neuropsiquiatr 71(8):545–548
Buxton N, Ho KJ, Macarthur D et al (2001) Neuroendoscopic third ventriculostomy for hydrocephalus in adults: Report of a single unit’s experience with 63 cases. Surg Neurol 55(2):74–78
Chan K, Bhandari M (2011) Three-minute critical appraisal of a case series article. Indian J Orthop 45(2):103–104
Chiba K, Aihara Y, Kawamata T (2018) A new optimal marker to evaluate the effectiveness of endoscopic third ventriculostomy during operation: “Folding Sign.” World Neurosurg 119:e138–e144
Chowdhry SA, Cohen AR (2013) Intraventricular neuroendoscopy: complication avoidance and management. World Neurosurg 79(2 Suppl):e11-10
Covidence systematic review software, Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia. Available at www.covidence.org. Accessed 13 Nov 2019
Demerdash A, Rocque BG, Johnston J et al (2017) Endoscopic third ventriculostomy: A historical review. Br J Neurosurg 31(1):28–32
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(5):489–493
Egger D, Balmer B, Altermatt S, Meuli M (2010) Third ventriculostomy in a single pediatric surgical unit. Childs Nerv Syst 26(1):93–99
Ersahin Y, Arslan D (2008) Complications of endoscopic third ventriculostomy. Childs Nerv Syst 24(8):943–948
Friedman GN, Grannan BL, Nahed BV, Codd PJ (2015) Initial Experience with High-Definition Camera-On-a-Chip Flexible Endoscopy for Intraventricular Neurosurgery. World Neurosurg 84(6):2053–2058
Gangemi M, Donati P, Maiuri F et al (1999) Endoscopic third ventriculostomy for hydrocephalus. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 42(3):128–132
Grand W, Leonardo J, Chamczuk AJ, Korus AJ (2016) Endoscopic Third Ventriculostomy in 250 Adults With Hydrocephalus: Patient Selection, Outcomes, and Complications. Neurosurgery 78(1):109–119
Hailong F, Guangfu H, Haibin T et al (2008) Endoscopic third ventriculostomy in the management of communicating hydrocephalus: a preliminary study. J Neurosurg 109(5):923–930
Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. (2019) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.
Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327(7414):557–560
Higgins JP, Thompson SG (2002) Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 21(11):1539–1558
Idowu O, Doherty A, Tiamiyu O (2008) Initial experience with endoscopic third ventriculostomy in Nigeria. West Africa Childs Nerv Syst 24(2):253–255
Kawsar KA, Haque MR, Chowdhury FH (2015) Avoidance and management of perioperative complications of endoscopic third ventriculostomy: the Dhaka experience. J Neurosurg 123(6):1414–1419
Kulkarni AV, Drake JM, Kestle JR, Mallucci CL, Sgouros S, Constantini S, Canadian Pediatric Neurosurgery Study Group (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(4):310–5
Kulkarni AV, Drake JM, Mallucci CL, Sgouros S, Roth J, Constantini S, Canadian Pediatric Neurosurgery Study Group (2009) Endoscopic third ventriculostomy in the treatment of childhood hydrocephalus. J Pediatr 155(2):254–9.e1
Lipina R, Reguli S, Dolezilova V et al (2008) Endoscopic third ventriculostomy for obstructive hydrocephalus in children younger than 6 months of age: is it a first-choice method? Childs Nerv Syst 24(9):1021–1027
Longatti PL, Barzoi G, Paccagnella F et al (2004) A simplified endoscopic third ventriculostomy under local anesthesia. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 47(2):90–92
Longatti PL, Fiorindi A, Martinuzzi A (2004) Failure of endoscopic third ventriculostomy in the treatment of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. Minim Invasive Neurosur 47(6):342–345
McGirt MJ, Woodworth G, Coon AL et al (2005) Diagnosis, treatment, and analysis of long-term outcomes in idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus. Neurosurgery 57(4):699–705
Melot A, Curey-Leveque S, Derrey S et al (2013) Endoscopic 3rd ventriculocisternostomy: Procedural complications and long-term dysfunctions? Neurochirurgie 59(4–5):165–170
Morgenstern PF, Osbun N, Schwartz TH et al (2011) Pineal region tumors: an optimal approach for simultaneous endoscopic third ventriculostomy and biopsy. Neurosurg Focus 30(4):E3
Niknejad HR, Depreitere B, De Vleeschouwer S et al (2015) Results of endoscopic third ventriculostomy in elderly patients >/=65 years of age. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 130:48–54
Obaid S, Weil AG, Rahme R, Bojanowski MW (2015) Endoscopic third ventriculostomy for obstructive hydrocephalus due to intraventricular hemorrhage. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 76(2):99–111
O’Brien DF, Hayhurst C, Pizer B, Mallucci CL (2006) Outcomes in patients undergoing single-trajectory endoscopic third ventriculostomy and endoscopic biopsy for midline tumors presenting with obstructive hydrocephalus. J Neurosurg 105(3 Suppl):219–226
O’Brien DF, Javadpour M, Collins DR et al (2005) Endoscopic third ventriculostomy: an outcome analysis of primary cases and procedures performed after ventriculoperitoneal shunt malfunction. J Neurosurg 103(5 Suppl):393–400
Oertel J, Vulcu S, Eickele L et al (2017) Long-term follow-up of repeat endoscopic third ventriculostomy in obstructive hydrocephalus. World Neurosurg 99:556–565
Oertel JMK, Mondorf Y, Baldauf J et al (2009) Endoscopic third ventriculostomy for obstructive hydrocephalus due to intracranial hemorrhage with intraventricular extension: Clinical article. J Neurosurg 111(6):1119–1126
Ogiwara H, Dipatri AJ Jr, Alden TD et al (2010) Endoscopic third ventriculostomy for obstructive hydrocephalus in children younger than 6 months of age. Childs Nerv Syst 26(3):343–347
Romeo A, Naftel RP, Griessenauer CJ et al (2013) Long-term change in ventricular size following endoscopic third ventriculostomy for hydrocephalus due to tectal plate gliomas: Clinical article. J Neurosurg Pediatr 11(1):20–25
Salvador SF, Oliveira J, Pereira J et al (2014) Endoscopic third ventriculostomy in the management of hydrocephalus: Outcome analysis of 168 consecutive procedures. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 126:130–136
Sanchez Rodriguez JJ, Torres-Corzo J, Cervantes DS et al (2017) Influence of the State of the Subarachnoid Space of the Cranial Base in Hydrocephalus Resolution after Endoscopy. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 78(3):255–259
Santamarta D, Diaz Alvarez A, Goncalves JM, Hernandez J (2005) Outcome of endoscopic third ventriculostomy Results from an unselected series with noncommunicating hydrocephalus. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 147(4):377–382
Stachura K, Grzywna E, Kwinta BM, Moskala MM (2014) Endoscopic third ventriculostomy - Effectiveness of the procedure for obstructive hydrocephalus with different etiology in adults. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne 9(4):586–595
Sufianov AA, Kasper EM, Sufianov RA (2018) An optimized technique of endoscopic third ventriculocisternostomy (ETV) for children with occlusive hydrocephalus. Neurosurg Rev 41(3):851–859
Torres-Corzo JG, Islas-Aguilar MA, Cerecedo-Lopez CD (2018) Flexible Neuroendoscopic diagnosis and management of ventricular tumors: a retrospective cohort study. World Neurosurg 118:e707–e712
Torres-Corzo JG, Tapia-Perez JH, Vecchia RRD et al (2010) Endoscopic management of hydrocephalus due to neurocysticercosis. Clin Neurol and Neurosurg 112(1):11–16
Uche EO, Okorie C, Iloabachie I et al (2018) Endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV) and ventriculoperitoneal shunt (VPS) in non-communicating hydrocephalus (NCH): comparison of outcome profiles in Nigerian children. Childs Nerv Syst 34(9):1683–1689
Vogel TW, Bahuleyan B, Robinson S, Cohen AR (2013) The role of endoscopic third ventriculostomy in the treatment of hydrocephalus. J Neurosurg Pediatr 12(1):54–61
Vulcu S, Eickele L, Cinalli G et al (2015) Long-term results of endoscopic third ventriculostomy: an outcome analysis. J Neurosurg 123(6):1456–1462
Wang S, Stone S, Weil AG et al (2017) Comparative effectiveness of flexible versus rigid neuroendoscopy for endoscopic third ventriculostomy and choroid plexus cauterization: A propensity score-matched cohort and survival analysis. J Neurosurg Pediatr 19(5):585–591
Warf BC, Tracy S, Mugamba J (2012) Long-term outcome for endoscopic third ventriculostomy alone or in combination with choroid plexus cauterization for congenital aqueductal stenosis in African infants: Clinical article. J Neurosurg Pediatr 10(2):108–111
Wu Y, Li C, Zong X et al (2018) Application of endoscopic third ventriculostomy for treating hydrocephalus-correlated Chiari type I malformation in a single Chinese neurosurgery centre. Neurosurg Rev 41(1):249–254
Zhao R, Shi W, Yang H, Li H (2016) Endoscopic Third Ventriculostomy Instead of Shunt Revision in Children Younger Than 3 Years of Age. World Neurosurg 88:92–96
Funding
Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi di Verona within the CRUI-CARE Agreement. No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
AB was he proponent of the idea for this article and contributed to manuscript draft and review. BM performed the literature search and manuscript drafting; data analysis was performed by BM and SC under the supervision of RAM. AP, FS, SD, AMA contributed to paper screening and manuscript review. A Feletti, A Fiorindi, PL, and FS contributed to critical revision of the manuscript. TRS and RAM contributed to data analysis, critical revision, and supervision of the work.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval
Not applicable.
Consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Conflict of interest
No conflict of interest or competing interests to report related to this work.
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Timothy R Smith and Rania A Mekary are the co-senior authors
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Boaro, A., Mahadik, B., Petrillo, A. et al. Efficacy and safety of flexible versus rigid endoscopic third ventriculostomy in pediatric and adult populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosurg Rev 45, 199–216 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-021-01590-6
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-021-01590-6