gms | German Medical Science

70. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Neurochirurgie (DGNC)
Joint Meeting mit der Skandinavischen Gesellschaft für Neurochirurgie

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Neurochirurgie (DGNC) e. V.

12.05. - 15.05.2019, Würzburg

Article

Send article

Programmable versus non-programmable valves – which do better?

Programmierbare versus nicht programmierbare Shunts – Welche funktionieren besser?

Meeting Abstract

Search Medline for

  • Martina Messing-Jünger - Asklepios Klinik Sankt Augustin, Neurochirurgie, Sankt Augustin, Deutschland
  • presenting/speaker Stephanie Jünger - Asklepios Klinik Sankt Augustin, Neurochirurgie, Sankt Augustin, Deutschland
  • Mansoorali Sitabkhan - Asklepios Klinik Sankt Augustin, Neurochirurgie, Sankt Augustin, Deutschland
  • Nina Evertz - Asklepios Klinik Sankt Augustin, Neurochirurgie, Sankt Augustin, Deutschland
  • Elke Januschek - Asklepios Klinik Sankt Augustin, Neurochirurgie, Sankt Augustin, Deutschland

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Neurochirurgie. 70. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Neurochirurgie (DGNC), Joint Meeting mit der Skandinavischen Gesellschaft für Neurochirurgie. Würzburg, 12.-15.05.2019. Düsseldorf: German Medical Science GMS Publishing House; 2019. DocP038

doi: 10.3205/19dgnc376, urn:nbn:de:0183-19dgnc3765

Published: May 8, 2019

© 2019 Messing-Jünger et al.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. See license information at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Outline

Text

Objective: There are numerous shunt systems with different types of valves available for the treatment of paediatric hydrocephalus. Programmable valves (PV) are preferred over non-programmable valves (NPV), however only few studies have compared valve survival time of PV with NPV. The objective of this retrospective study was to compare survival time of different valve types and influencing factors.

Methods: This is a retrospective study of consecutive patients who underwent primary shunt insertion for hydrocephalus in our institution between 2002 and 2014. All patients were under routine post-operative follow up and valve survival time was calculated from the time of insertion to change or removal of valve. Statistical analyses were done using Pearson’s Chi square/Fischer exact tests, Mann Whitney U/Student “t” test, Kaplan Meier survival analysis with log rank test and hazard ratio with Cox proportional hazard test.

Results: 252 patients underwent primary shunt surgery, of which 37 (14.7%) patients had NPV and 215 (85.3%) PV. Age at first surgery ranged from 0 to 7949 (median 94) days. Disease etiology was not related to type of valve inserted. Frequency of revision was similar for all etiologies recorded. Mean age of first surgery was significantly lower in patients with NPV and those undergoing a revision (both p=0.001). Revision surgery was done for 170 (67.5%) and only 36 (21.6%) were valve associated. Time to revision did not differ (p=0.715) between patients with NPV and PV.

Conclusion: Type of valve used for hydrocephalus surgery has very less influence on revision rate. Young age is associated with insertion of NPV and higher revision rate.