Background: Optimal surgical management of patients presenting with shunt failure in the age of neuroendoscopy remains complex. The value of replacing the entire shunt system as opposed to a single shunt component has not been assessed. Methods: We reviewed the records of all pediatric patients who underwent their first shunt revision between January 1992 and December 1998. Patients with primary shunt failure attributed solely to proximal catheter obstruction or distal catheter obstruction were included for analysis. Shunt revisions were classified as total (entire shunt replaced) or partial (only malfunctioning component replaced). Kaplan-Meier (shunt survival curves) and log rank analysis were used to compare failure rates between partially and totally revised shunts according to the underlying diagnosis and failed shunt part. Significant differences in univariate analysis were confirmed with a multivariate proportional hazards regression model. Results: 301 pediatric patients underwent primary shunt revision (183 total, 118 partial revisions). All shunts utilized distal slit peritoneal catheters. In shunt failures attributed to proximal obstruction, reutilization of the distal catheter was associated with a 57% increased risk of subsequent shunt failure (hazard ratio 1.57, 95% confidence interval 1.19–3.49). In shunt failures attributed to distal obstruction, subsequent shunt survival was not affected by reutilization of the proximal catheter (p = 0.581). When stratified according to the etiology of hydrocephalus, only patients with intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) failed to demonstrate greater survival of totally revised shunts. Conclusions: In this series, in the setting of proximal shunt catheter obstruction, reutilizing the functional distal catheter was associated with an increase in subsequent shunt failure rates compared to revising the entire shunt system. Total revision was not associated with improved shunt survival in patients with IVH.

Keywords:
Ventriculoperitoneal shunt failure, Revision, Hydrocephalus
1.
Bondurant CP, Jimenez DF: Epidemiology of cerebrospinal fluid shunting. Pediatr Neurosurg 1995;23:254–258.
2.
McCallum JE, Turbeville D: Cost and outcome in a series of shunted premature infants with intraventricular hemorrhage. Pediatr Neurosurg 1994;20:63–67.
3.
Tung H, Raffel C, McComb JG: Ventricular cerebrospinal fluid eosinophilia in children with ventriculoperitoneal shunts. J Neurosurg 1991;75:541–544.
4.
Sainte-Rose C, Piatt JH, Renier D, Pierre-Kahn A, Hirsch JF, Hoffman HJ, Humphreys RP, Hendrick EB: Mechanical complications in shunts. Pediatr Neurosurg 1991;17:2–9.
5.
Drake JM, Kestle JR, Tuli S: CSF shunts 50 years on – past, present and future. Childs Nerv Syst 2000;16:800–804.
6.
Lazareff JA, Peacock W, Holly L, Ver Halen J, Wong A, Olmstead C: Multiple shunt failures: An analysis of relevant factors. Childs Nerv Syst 1998;14:271–275.
7.
Tuli S, Drake J, Lawless J, Wigg M, Lamberti-Pasculli M: Risk factors for repeated cerebrospinal shunt failures in pediatric patients with hydrocephalus. J Neurosurg 2000;92:31–38.
8.
Piatt JH Jr, Carlson CV: A search for determinants of cerebrospinal fluid shunt survival: Retrospective analysis of a 14-year institutional experience. Pediatr Neurosurg 1993;19:233–242.
9.
Bierbrauer KS, Storrs BB, McLone DG, Tomita T, Dauser R: A prospective, randomized study of shunt function and infections as a function of shunt placement. Pediatr Neurosurg 1990;16:287–291.
10.
Pattisapu JV, Trumble ER, Taylor KR, Howard PD, Kovach TM: Percutaneous endoscopic recanalization of the catheter: A new technique of proximal shunt revision. Neurosurgery 1999;45:1361–1367.
11.
Rekate HL: Shunt revision: Complications and their prevention. Pediatr Neurosurg 1991;17:155–162.
12.
Hudgins RJ, Boydston WR: Shunt revision by coagulation with retention of the ventricular catheter. Pediatr Neurosurg 1998;29:57–59.
13.
Drake JM, Kestle JR, Milner R, Cinalli G, Boop F, Piatt J Jr, Haines S, Schiff SJ, Cochrane DD, Steinbok P, MacNeil N: Randomized trial of cerebrospinal fluid shunt valve design in pediatric hydrocephalus. Neurosurgery 1998;43:294–305.
14.
Pollack IF, Albright AL, Adelson PD: A randomized, controlled study of a programmable shunt valve versus a conventional valve for patients with hydrocephalus. Hakim-Medos Investigator Group. Neurosurgery 1999;45:1399–1411.
15.
Piatt JH Jr: Cerebrospinal fluid shunt failure: Late is different from early. Pediatr Neurosurg 1995;23:133–139.
16.
Iskandar BJ, McLaughlin C, Mapstone TB, Grabb PA, Oakes WJ: Pitfalls in the diagnosis of ventricular shunt dysfunction: Radiology reports and ventricular size. Pediatrics 1998;101:1031–1036.
17.
Iskandar BJ, Tubbs S, Mapstone TB, Grabb PA, Bartolucci AA, Oakes WJ: Death in shunted hydrocephalic children in the 1990s. Pediatr Neurosurg 1998;28:173–176.
18.
Kaplan E, Meier P: Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc 1958;53:457–481.
19.
Kalbfleisch J, Prentice R: The Statistical Analysis of Failure Time Data. New York, Wiley, 1980.
20.
Ludbrook J, Dudley H: Issues in biomedical statistics: Analysing 2 × 2 tables of frequencies. Aust NZ J Surg 1994;64:780–787.
21.
Griebel RW, Hoffman HJ, Becker L: Calcium deposits on CSF shunts. Clinical observations and ultrastructural analysis. Childs Nerv Syst 1987;3:180–182.
22.
Drake JM, Sainte-Rose C, DaSilva M, Hirsch JF: Cerebrospinal fluid flow dynamics in children with external ventricular drains. Neurosurgery 1991;28:242–250.
23.
Drake JM, da Silva MC, Rutka JT: Functional obstruction of an antisiphon device by raised tissue capsule pressure. Neurosurgery 1993;32:137–139.
24.
Elisevich K, Mattar AG, Cheeseman F: Biodegradation of distal shunt catheters. Pediatr Neurosurg 1994;21:71–76.
25.
Choudhury AR: Avoidable factors that contribute to the complications of ventriculoperitoneal shunt in childhood hydrocephalus. Childs Nerv Syst 1990;6:346–349.
26.
Cozzens JW, Chandler JP: Increased risk of distal ventriculoperitoneal shunt obstruction associated with slit valves or distal slits in the peritoneal catheter. J Neurosurg 1997;87:682–686.
© 2003 S. Karger AG, Basel
2002
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.