Comparative Study of Ventriculoperitoneal Shunt Versus Lumboperitoneal Shunt in Patients Presenting with Idiopathic Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus

Waqas Ahmed; Maqsood Akram; Zahid Hussain; Talha Yasin; Babar Shamim; Muhammad  Usman

doi:10.51253/pafmj.v76iSUPPL-1.13189

Authors

Waqas Ahmed Department of Neurosurgery, Combined Military Hospital, Rawalpindi/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan
Maqsood Akram Department of Neurosurgery, Combined Military Hospital, Rawalpindi/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan
Zahid Hussain Department of Neurosurgery, Combined Military Hospital, Rawalpindi/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan
Talha Yasin Department of Neurosurgery, Combined Military Hospital, Rawalpindi/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan
Babar Shamim Department of Spine Surgery, Combined Military Hospital, Rawalpindi/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan
Muhammad Usman Department of Neurosurgery, Combined Military Hospital, Rawalpindi/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51253/pafmj.v76iSUPPL-1.13189

Keywords:

Lumboperitoneal shunt, Normal pressure hydrocephalus, Ventriculoperitoneal shunt.

Abstract

Objective: To compare ventriculoperitoneal shunt versus lumboperitoneal shunt in the treatment of patients presenting with idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus.

Study Design: Quasi experimental study.

Place and Duration of Study: Department of Neurosurgery, Combined Military Hospital, Rawalpindi Pakistan, from Aug 2024 to Feb 2025.

Methodology: A total of 60 patients with idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus were divided into two equal groups of 30 patients each. Patients in Group A underwent ventriculoperitoneal shunting while patients in Group B underwent lumboperitoneal shunting. The operative time of both group of patients was documented. Both group of patients were monitored for resolution of symptoms and complications at 2, 4 and 12 weeks intervals. Data analysis was done using SPSS version 25 taking p value of <0.05 as statistically significant.

Results: The mean age of patients was 70.2±4.9 years. There were 35 male patients (59.3%) and 25 female patients (41.7%). The mean operative time was 57.0±6.7 minutes in Group A versus 63.7±8.3 minutes in the Group B (p=0.001). Twenty-six patients (86.7%) reported improvement in symptoms at 3 months follow up in the Group A versus 22 patients (73.3%) in Group B, the difference being insignificant (p=0.197).

Conclusion: Both procedures are effective treatment modalities for the management of patients presenting with idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. Ventriculoperitoneal shunt group had a lesser mean operative time while lumboperitoneal shunt was safer in terms of complications like intracranial hemorrhage albeit the higher risk of shunt blockade.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Cui W, Sun T, Wu K, You C, Guan J. Comparison of ventriculoperitoneal shunt to lumboperitoneal shunt in the treatment of idiopathic: A monocentric, assessor-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Medicine 2021; 100(31): e26691.

https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000026691

2. Carswell C. Idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: historical context and a contemporary guide. Pract Neurol 2023; 23(1): 15-22.

https://doi.org/10.1136/pn-2021-003291

3. Wang Z, Zhang Y, Hu F, Ding J, Wang X. Pathogenesis and pathophysiology of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. CNS Neurosci Ther 2020; 26(12): 1230-1240.

https://doi.org/10.1111/cns.13526

4. Nakajima M, Yamada S, Miyajima M, Ishii K, Kuriyama N, Kazui H, et al. Guidelines for management of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (third edition): endorsed by the Japanese society of normal pressure hydrocephalus. Neurol Med Chir 2021; 61(2): 63-97.

https://doi.org/10.2176/nmc.st.2020-0292

5. Israelsson H, Larsson J, Eklund A, Malm J. Risk factors, comorbidities, quality of life, and complications after surgery in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: review of the INPH-CRasH study. Neurosurg Focus 2020; 49(4): E8.

https://doi.org/10.3171/2020.7.focus20466

6. Mehta NH, Greenberg ABW, Kahle KT. The efficacy of endoscopic third ventriculostomy for idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. World Neurosurg 2023; 179: 158-66.

7. Wu EM, El Ahmadieh TY, Kafka B, Caruso J, Aoun SG, Plitt AR, et al. Ventriculoperitoneal shunt outcomes of normal pressure hydrocephalus: a case series of 116 patients. Cureus 2019; 11(3): e4170.

https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.4170

8. Popal AM, Zhu Z, Guo X, Zheng Z, Cai C, Jiang H, et al. Outcomes of ventriculoperitoneal shunt in patients with idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus 2 years after surgery. Front Surg 2021; 8: 641561.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2021.641561

9. Liao CL, Tseng PH, Huang HY, Chiu TL, Lin SZ, Tsai ST. Lumbar-peritoneal shunt for idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus and secondary normal pressure hydrocephalus. Tzu Chi Med J 2021; 34(3): 323-328.

https://doi.org/0.4103/tcmj.tcmj_125_21

10. Xie D, Chen H, Guo X, Liu Y. Comparative study of lumboperitoneal shunt and ventriculoperitoneal shunt in the treatment of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. Am J Transl Res 2021; 13(10): 11917-24.

11. Zulfiqar F, Rehmani MA, Shibli Z, Zeeshan QM, Kumar R, Ali MF. Results of ventriculoperitoneal shunt surgery among patients with normal pressure hydrocephalus. Pak J Med Health Sci 2022; 16(2): 1009.

https://doi.org/10.53350/pjmhs221621009

12. Panezai AS, Kalhoro A, Hassan S, Javeed F, Rehman L. Outcome in normal pressure hydrocephalus after ventriculoperitoneal shunt in tertiary care hospital. Pak J Neurol Surg 2020; 24(4): 343-349.

https://doi.org/10.36552/pjns.v24i4.492

13. Chiu CD, Chiu PF, Wu CY, Yip HT, Chiu YP, Ji HR, et al. Comparing the long-term cardiovascular outcomes of lumbo-peritoneal, ventriculo-peritoneal, or non-shunting treatment after idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: a nationwide retrospective cohort study. Int J Med Sci 2024; 21(4): 656-63.

https://doi.org/10.7150/ijms.92032

14. Li X, Wang Y, Xia B, Che H, Yan Z. Lumboperitoneal shunt and ventriculoperitoneal shunt for chronic hydrocephalus after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: a comparison. Front Surg 2024; 11: 1368493.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2024.1368493

15. Trungu S, Scollato A, Ricciardi L, Forcato S, Polli FM, Miscusi M, et al. Clinical outcomes of shunting in normal pressure hydrocephalus: a multicenter prospective observational study. J Clin Med 2022; 11(5): 1286.

https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11051286

16. Li Z, Wang H, Zhang H, Yang J, Yang X, Wen L. Lumboperitoneal shunt surgery via continuous two-stage procedure: Technique notes and outcomes. Front Neurol. 2022; 13: 1059316. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2022.1059316

17. Menger RP, Connor DE Jr, Thakur JD, Sonig A, Smith E, Guthikonda B, et al. A comparison of lumboperitoneal and ventriculoperitoneal shunting for idiopathic intracranial hypertension: an analysis of economic impact and complications using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Neurosurg Focus 2014; 37(5): E4.

https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.8.FOCUS14436

18. Wang Z, Wang K, Qian Z, Zeng L, Gao L. Lumboperitoneal and ventriculoperitoneal shunt surgery for posthemorrhagic communicating hydrocephalus: a comparison. World Neurosurg 2019; 127: e638-43.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2019.03.235

19. Sun T, Cui W, Yang J, Yuan Y, Li X, Yu H, et al. Shunting outcomes in communicating hydrocephalus: protocol for a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 2021; 11(8): e051127.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-051127