Background: No consensus exists regarding the management of hydrocephalus in children with posterior fossa tumors before, during or after surgery. In the present study we analyze the factors that predispose to persistent hydrocephalus and the need for a postoperative cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) diversion procedure. Methods: Pediatric patients who underwent surgery for posterior fossa tumors with hydrocephalus at our hospital were reviewed to evaluate the need for a postoperative CSF diversion procedure. Patients having undergone CSF diversion preoperatively were excluded from the study group. The case records of 84 patients were reviewed. The factors evaluated included age at diagnosis, duration of symptoms, severity of preoperative hydrocephalus, tumor size, tumor location, tumor histology, extent of tumor resection and postoperative complications that could be related to CSF circulation disorders. Results: At the time of presentation, 80/84 (95.2%) patients had symptomatic hydrocephalus; 25/84 (29.8%) patients required a CSF diversion procedure in the postoperative period. Children presenting with symptom duration of less than 3 months had a significantly higher requirement for postoperative CSF diversion in comparison to those with longer symptomatology (p = 0.016). Evan’s index and frontal and occipital horn ratio on preoperative imaging were found to correlate closely with the need for postoperative shunt (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). The requirement for shunt was statistically higher in patients with midline tumors in comparison to laterally placed lesions (p = 0.04) and in children with medulloblastoma (p < 0.001) and ependymoma (p = 0.016) as the tumor subtypes. Children who underwent intraoperative external ventricular drainage (EVD) had a shunt insertion rate of 39.6% compared with 16.7% of those who did not have an EVD (p < 0.001). Patients with meningitis and pseudomeningocele in the postoperative period had a statistically significant higher risk of shunt requirement (p = 0.008 and p = 0.016, respectively). The mean age at diagnosis and the extent of tumor resection did not correlate with the need for CSF diversion. Conclusion: The fact that less than one-third of patients require a CSF diversion after posterior fossa tumor resection refutes the role of prophylactic endoscopic third ventriculostomy. Awareness regarding the factors that can predict persistent postoperative hydrocephalus is essential for the surgeon during patient counseling and surgical planning, and also in deciding the intensity of postoperative clinical and radiological monitoring.

Keywords:
Posterior fossa tumor, Ventriculoperitoneal shunt, Endoscopic third ventriculostomy, Pediatric neurosurgery, Hydrocephalus, Cerebrospinal fluid diversion
1.
Albright L: The value of pre-craniotomy shunts in children with posterior fossa tumours. Clin Neurosurg 1983;30:278–285.
2.
Albright L, Reigel DH: Management of hydrocephalus secondary to posterior fossa tumors. J Neurosurg 1977;46:52–55.
3.
Raimondi AJ, Tomita T: Hydrocephalus and infratentorial tumors. Incidence, clinical picture, and treatment. J Neurosurg 1981;55:174–182.
4.
Imielinski BL, Kloc W, Wasilewski W, Liczbik W, Puzyrewski R, Karwacki Z: Posterior fossa tumors in children – indications for ventricular drainage and for V-P shunting. Childs Nerv Syst 1998;14:227–229.
5.
McLaurin RL: Disadvantages of the preoperative shunt in posterior fossa tumors. Clin Neurosurg 1983;30:286–294.
6.
Rappaport ZH, Shalit MN: Perioperative external ventricular drainage in obstructive hydrocephalus secondary to infratentorial brain tumors. Acta Neurochir 1989;96:118–121.
7.
Shalit MN, Ben Ari Y, Enyan N: The management of obstructive hydrocephalus by the use of external ventricular drainage. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 1979;47:161–172.
8.
Sainte-Rose C, Cinalli G, Roux FE, Maixner W, Chumas PD, Mansour M, Carpentier A, Bourgeois M, Zerah M, Pierre-Kahn A, Renier D: Management of hydrocephalus in pediatric patients with posterior fossa tumors: the role of endoscopic third ventriculostomy. J Neurosurg 2001;95:791–797.
9.
Cinalli G, Spennato P, Ruggiero C, Aliberti F, Trischitta V, Buonocore MC, Cianciulli E, Maggi G: Complications following endoscopic intracranial procedures in children. Childs Nerv Syst 2007;23:633–644.
10.
Bognar L, Borgulya G, Benke P, Madarassy G: Analysis of CSF shunting procedure requirement in children with posterior fossa tumors. Childs Nerv Syst 2003;19:332–336.
11.
Schmid UD, Seiler RW: Management of obstructive hydrocephalus secondary to posterior fossa tumors by steroid and subcutaneous ventricular catheter reservoir. J Neurosurg 1986;65:649–653.
12.
O’Hayon BB, Drake JM, Ossip MG, Tuli S, Clarke M: Frontal and occipital horn ratio: a linear estimate of ventricular size for multiple imaging modalities in pediatric hydrocephalus. Pediatr Neurosurg 1998;29:245–249.
13.
Fritsch MJ, Doerner L, Kienke S, Mehdorn HM: Hydrocephalus in children with posterior fossa tumors: role of endoscopic third ventriculostomy. J Neurosurg 2005;103:40–42.
14.
Gnanalingham KK, Lafuente J, Thompson D, Harkness W, Hayward R: The natural history of ventriculomegaly and tonsillar herniation in children with posterior fossa tumours – an MRI study. Pediatr Neurosurg 2003;39:246–253.
15.
Kumar V, Phipps K, Harkness W, Hayward RD: Ventriculo-peritoneal shunt requirement in children with posterior fossa tumours: an 11-year audit. Br J Neurosurg 1996;10:467–470.
16.
Morelli D, Pirotte B, Lubansu A, Detemmerman D, Aeby A, Fricx C, Berré J, David P, Brotchi J: Persistent hydrocephalus after early surgical management of posterior fossa tumors in children: is routine preoperative endoscopic third ventriculostomy justified? J Neurosurg 2005;103:247–252.
17.
Culley DJ, Berger MS, Shaw D, Geyer R: An analysis of factors determining the need for ventriculoperitoneal shunts after posterior fossa tumor surgery in children. Neurosurgery 1994;34:402–407.
18.
Hekmatpanah J, Mullan S: Ventriculo-caval shunt in the management of posterior fossa tumors. J Neurosurg 1967;26:609–613.
19.
Elkins CW, Fonseca JE: Ventriculovenous anastomosis in obstructive and acquired communicating hydrocephalus. J Neurosurg 1961;18:139–144.
20.
Abraham J, Chandy J: Ventriculo-atrial shunt in the management of posterior-fossa tumours: preliminary report. J Neurosurg 1963;20:252–253.
21.
Chumas P, Sainte-Rose C, Cinalli G: III Ventriculostomy in the management of posterior fossa tumors in children. Proceedings of the ISPN congress, Santiago, Chile. Childs Nerv Syst 1995;11:540.
22.
Ruggiero C, Cinalli G, Spennato P, Aliberti F, Cianciulli E, Trischitta V, Maggi G: Endoscopic third ventriculostomy in the treatment of hydrocephalus in posterior fossa tumors in children. Childs Nerv Syst 2004;20:828–833.
23.
McLaurin RL: On the use of precraniotomy shunting in the management of posterior fossa tumors in children. A cooperative study. Concepts Pediatr Neurosurg 1985;6:1–5.
24.
Riva-Cambrin J, Detsky AS, Lamberti-Pasculli M, Sargent MA, Armstrong D, Moineddin R, Cochrane DD, Drake JM: Predicting postresection hydrocephalus in pediatric patients with posterior fossa tumors. J Neurosurg Pediatr 2009;3:378–385.
25.
Dias MS, Albright AL: Management of hydrocephalus complicating childhood posterior fossa tumors. Pediatr Neurosci 1989;15:283–289.
26.
Santos de Oliveira R, Barros Jucá CE, Valera ET, Machado HR: Hydrocephalus in posterior fossa tumors in children. Are there factors that determine a need for permanent cerebrospinal fluid diversion? Childs Nerv Syst 2008;24:1397–1403.
27.
Papo I, Caruselli G, Luongo A: External ventricular drainage in the management of posterior fossa tumors in children and adolescents. Neurosurgery 1982;10:13–15.
28.
Due-Tonnessen BJ, Helseth E: Management of hydrocephalus in children with posterior fossa tumors: role of tumor surgery. Pediatr Neurosurg 2007;43:92–96.
29.
Stein BM, Tenner MS, Fraser RA: Hydrocephalus following removal of cerebellar astrocytomas in children. J Neurosurg 1972;36:763–768.
30.
Steinbok P, Singhal A, Mills J, Cochrane DD, Price AV: Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak and pseudomeningocele formation after posterior fossa tumor resection in children: a retrospective analysis. Childs Nerv Syst 2007;23:171–174.
© 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel
2012
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.