English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Corresponding author: Ho-Shin Gwak Department of System Cancer Science, Graduate School of Cancer Science and Policy, National Cancer Center, 323 Ilsan-ro, Ilsandong-gu, Goyang 10408, Republic of Korea Tel: +82-31-920-1666 Fax: +82-31-920-2798 E-mail: nsghs@ncc.re.kr Objective: Lumboperitoneal (LP) shunt has not been commonly used due to frequent over-drainage and malfunction. We adapted an LP shunt with a valve reservoir or programmable valve for use in patients who needed to avoid cranial surgery. We compared the clinical results of the LP shunt with a ventriculoperitoneal (VP) shunt. Methods: Among 188 shunt installations, we selected 132 patients who received a first-time shunt installation (108 VP shunt and 24 LP shunt) to compare clinical improvement, shunt malfunction, overand under-drainage, and infection rates along with clinical factors between the two groups of patients. Results: Clinical improvement occurred in 107 (80%) patients. The rates of clinical improvement were not significantly different between two groups. Malfunction and infection was recorded in 15 (11%) patients and in 8 (6%) patients, respectively. The incidence for malfunction and infection were not significantly different between two groups. Over-drainage and under-drainage were recorded in 19 patients, each. The need for valve adjustment was not significantly different between two groups (p=0.46). Shunt revision was performed in 31 (24%) patients. The proportion of patients received revisions in the LP shunt group tended to be greater (9/24) compared with the VP shunt group (22/108) (p=0.07). However, the total revision rates (number of revision/ total shunt) were not significantly different between the two groups (p=0.74). Conclusion: We suggest clinical efficacy of LP shunt with a valve reservoir is compatible with VP shunt, and recommend use of this system in patients with communicating hydrocephalus.

Clinical Results of Lumboperitoneal Shunt with a Valve Reservoir Compared with Ventriculoperitoneal Shunt