• Adip G Bhargav, Lorenzo Rinaldo, Giuseppe Lanzino, and Benjamin D Elder.
• Mayo Clinic School of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
• World Neurosurg. 2019 Jun 1; 126: e1017-e1022.

BackgroundVentricular shunts are most commonly placed via a frontal or parietal approach. However, there is a paucity of data comparing complication and revision rates associated with these approaches in the idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH) population.MethodsPatients with iNPH treated with ventricular shunting between 2001 and 2017 at our institution were included for analysis. Patient characteristics, catheter accuracy, and incidence of revision were determined from the medical record. Catheter accuracy was determined using axial computed tomography imaging and classified as grade 1, 2, or 3 based on location of the catheter tip.ResultsThere were 348 patients included for analysis with 266 (76.4%) and 82 (23.6%) receiving a frontal versus parietal shunt, respectively. Patients undergoing the parietal approach were more likely to receive a programmable valve (37.8% vs. 25.2%; P = 0.026). Neuronavigation was used more frequently for patients undergoing the parietal approach (26.8% vs. 4.1%; P < 0.001); however, a minority of cases used neuronavigation in general (9.5%). There was no difference in catheter accuracy between the 2 approaches and no difference in catheter accuracy with the use of neuronavigation. The overall revision rate was 21.0%, and there were no differences in the incidence of revisions between the frontal and parietal approaches (21.8% vs. 18.3%, respectively; P = 0.495). There were no differences in revision subtypes between the approaches.ConclusionsThese results suggest that the type of approach for shunting may not have a significant impact on complication and revision rates in patients with iNPH, and either approach is a reasonable first-line option.Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

5 keywords...

hide…