Endoscopic third ventriculostomy compared to ventriculoperitoneal shunt as treatment for idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Ladina Greuter ¹, Timo Schenker ², Raphael Guzman ^1 3 2, Jehuda Soleman ^1 3 2

Affiliations expand

• PMID: 36537195
• DOI: 10.1080/02688697.2022.2149697

Abstract

Background: The accepted treatment for idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH) is the insertion of a ventriculoperitoneal shunt (VPS). Recently, some studies examined endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV) for the treatment of iNPH with controversial results. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare ETV to VPS regarding complications and outcome for the treatment of iNPH.

Methods: We searched Medline, Embase and Scopus. Due to the scarcity of data, we did not include only randomized controlled trials, but also retro- and prospective studies. The primary outcome was failure of cerebrospinal fluid diversion method. Secondary endpoints were clinical postoperative improvement rate, morbidity and mortality.

Results: Out of 311 screened studies, three were included in the quantitative analysis including one RCT and two retrospective cohort studies. No statistically significant difference concerning failure rate of CSF diversion method (ETV 27.5% vs. VPS 33.2%, RR 1.19, 95% CI [0.69-2.04], p = 0.52) or postoperative improvement was found (68% for ETV vs. 72.8% for VPS, RR 0.81, 95% CI [0.57-1.16], p = 0.26). ETV showed a significantly lower complication rate compared to VPS (7.5% vs. 51.1%, RR 0.25, 95% CI [0.08-0.76], p = 0.02).

Conclusion: ETV and VPS did not differ significantly regarding their failure rate for iNPH, while ETV showed a significantly lower complication rate than VPS. However, the data available is scarce with only one RCT investigating this important matter. Further well-designed trials are necessary to investigate the clinical outcome of ETV in iNPH.

Trial registration number: PROSPERO (ID: CRD42020199173).

Keywords: Endoscopic third ventriculostomy; NPH; meta-analysis; normal pressure hydrocephalus; ventriculoperitoneal shunt.

Similar articles

• Endoscopic third ventriculostomy versus ventriculoperitoneal shunt in pediatric and adult population: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Pande A, Lamba N, Mammi M, Gebrehiwet P, Trenary A, Doucette J, Papatheodorou S, Bunevicius A, Smith TR, Mekary RA.Neurosurg Rev. 2021 Jun;44(3):1227-1241. doi: 10.1007/s10143-020-01320-4. Epub 2020 May 31.PMID: 32476100
• Endoscopic Third Ventriculostomy versus Ventriculoperitoneal Shunt in Patients with Obstructive Hydrocephalus: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Lu L, Chen H, Weng S, Xu Y.World Neurosurg. 2019 Sep;129:334-340. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2019.04.255. Epub 2019 May 25.PMID: 31136836 Review.
• The durability of endoscopic third ventriculostomy and ventriculoperitoneal shunts in children with hydrocephalus following posterior fossa tumor resection: a systematic review and time-to-failure analysis.Dewan MC, Lim J, Shannon CN, Wellons JC 3rd.J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2017 May;19(5):578-584. doi: 10.3171/2017.1.PEDS16536. Epub 2017 Mar 10.PMID: 28291428 Review.
• Endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV) for idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH).Tudor KI, Tudor M, McCleery J, Car J.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Jul 29;2015(7):CD010033. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010033.pub2.PMID: 26222251 Free PMC article. Review.
• Inferior short-term safety profile of endoscopic third ventriculostomy compared with ventriculoperitoneal shunt placement for idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus: a population-based study.Chan AK, McGovern RA, Zacharia BE, Mikell CB, Bruce SS, Sheehy JP, Kelly KM, McKhann GM 2nd.Neurosurgery. 2013 Dec;73(6):951-60; discussion 960-1. doi: 10.1227/NEU.0000000000000129.PMID: 23921704