Endoscopic third ventriculostomy compared to ventriculoperitoneal shunt as treatment for idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Ladina Greuter, Timo Schenker, Raphaël Guzman, Jehuda Soleman
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: = 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).