Abstract
Objective
Ventriculoperitoneal shunt (VPS) surgery is a common treatment for hydrocephalus in children and adults, making it one of the most common procedures in neurosurgery. Children being treated with a VPS often require several revisions during their lifetime with a lifetime revision rate of up to 80%. Several different techniques exist for inserting the distal catheter, while mini-laparotomy, trocar, or laparoscopy is traditionally used. As opposed to adults, only few studies exist, comparing the outcome of the different distal catheter placement techniques in children. This international survey aims to investigate the current daily practice concerning distal shunt placement techniques in children.
Material and methods
An online questionnaire investigating the different techniques used to place the distal catheter in pediatric VPS surgery was distributed internationally. All results were analyzed using descriptive and comparative statistics.
Results
A total of 139 responses were obtained. Mini-laparotomy was reported to be the most frequently used technique (n = 104, 74.8%) for distal shunt placement in children, while laparoscopic or trocar-assisted placements were only used by 3.6% (n = 5) and 21.6% (n = 30) of all respondents, respectively. Over half (n = 75, 54.0%) of all respondents do not believe that laparoscopic placement improves the outcome.
Conclusion
This international survey shows that mini-laparotomy is the most frequently used technique for distal VPS placement in children all over the world. Further randomized trials are needed to elucidate this matter.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Ventriculoperitoneal shunt (VPS) surgery is a frequent treatment for hydrocephalus in children and adults, making it one of the most common procedures in neurosurgery [1]. Other methods like ventriculoatrial or ventriculopleural shunts are used less frequently due to their higher risk of complications [2, 3]. Many patients, but especially children, with a VPS require revision surgery at some point during their lifetime, which leads to a high socioeconomic burden [4]. Children have been shown to suffer from up to 30–40% [3, 5,6,7] of shunt failure requiring surgery in the first year, and up to 84.5% requires a revision surgery in a long term [8]. Distal shunt failure rates make up to approximately 30% of all shunt revisions [9, 10]. Traditionally, the distal end of the catheter is placed intraperitoneally via a mini-laparotomy or trocar insertion; however, several studies, most of them conducted in adults, have shown that laparoscopic placement of the distal catheter leads to fewer complications and lower shunt misplacement rates compared to traditional, open placement [11,12,13,14,15]. While there is high-quality evidence for laparoscopic shunt placement in adults, data is scarce in the pediatric population. The aim of this survey was to investigate the current international practice concerning shunt placement techniques in children focused on distal placement techniques.
Methods
In December 2020, an online survey was distributed through Neurosurgery Research Listserv and the European Association of Neurosurgical Societies (EANS). After 8 weeks, a reminder was sent out again and the survey was closed at the end of April 2021. The questions were prepared and launched via Google Forms (Google LLC, Mountain View, CA, USA), which is a web-based survey platform.
It included a total of 23 questions, of which nine were demographic questions and the rest were focused on surgical techniques (Table 1). The questionnaire was focused on distal shunt placement techniques, but also included questions regarding the proximal catheter placement for comprehensiveness. The survey was considered completed when at least 90% of the questions were answered. Countries were either labeled as high-income, middle-income, or low-income according to the definition by the World Bank [16]. At the end of the survey, all respondents could provide their names if they wanted to be acknowledged for their participation.
Data was collected automatically through the online platform and exported for analysis. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed using R (R statistical software, Vienna, Austria, version 1.4.1106). Comparable contingency statistics were conducted using Fisher and chi-square tests. For contingency statistics, we dichotomized the answers by the different continents and socioeconomic regions (income group). Furthermore, we added correlations between the proximal and distal placement locations. A p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results
Demographics
A total of 139 neurosurgeons participated in this survey, of which 82.6% (n = 114) were male. All participants completed the survey. Nearly half of all participants (n = 57, 41.0%) have more than 20 years of experience, and 59.9% (n = 82) work as an attending at their institution (Table 2). Over half of the respondents practice neurosurgery in Europe (n = 83, 60.6%). A third (n = 47, 34.1%) of the participating neurosurgeons operate solely on children. An overview of all demographic data is shown in Table 2.
Surgical technique
Distal placement
A majority of the participating neurosurgeons use a mini-laparotomy as their preferred technique to place the distal shunt catheter (n = 104, 74.8%), followed by placement via a trocar (n = 30, 21.6%), while only a minority (n = 5, 3.6%) of respondents stated to use laparoscopy as their standard technique (Table 3). Nearly all respondents (n = 107, 79.3%) use the same technique in children and adults. Nearly half (n = 74, 48.0%, multiple answers possible) stated that the main reason for them to place the distal catheter via a mini-laparotomy is due to an institutional standard. Most of the respondents do not believe that the different distal insertion techniques would change the outcome (no difference between laparoscopy [n = 75, 54.0%] and trocar [n = 48, 65.8%] compared to mini-laparotomy, Table 3).
In case of a laparoscopic insertion, two-thirds of the respondents (n = 68, 66.0%) would perform it together with a pediatric surgeon. Most participants believe that more research on this topic is (n = 80, 57.6%) necessary.
Proximal placement
Right trigonal shunt placement was the preferred location for proximal shunt catheter placement (n = 76, 54.7%) followed by right frontal placement (n = 63, 45.3%), while none of the respondents uses the left side as the standard approach (Table 3). This approach was chosen due to an institute’s standard in 37.1% (n = 65), followed by the respondents’ personal preference in 29.1% (n = 51, multiple answers possible). The majority (n = 104, 65.0%) of the participating neurosurgeons place the catheter freehand with anatomical landmarks, followed by navigation (n = 35, 21.9%) and ultrasound guidance (n = 17, 10.6%, Table 3).
Revision surgery
An estimated shunt revision rate of 3–5% was reported by 39.4% (n = 54) of all respondents (Fig. 1).
In case of a VPS revision, 59.7% (n = 83) of all respondents use the same technique as they used for the initial distal placement, while the remaining (n = 56, 40.3%) stated to adapt their technique depending on the type of shunt failure and specific patient characteristics (Table 3).
Analysis of influencing parameters
Comparing the answers according to the different countries’ socioeconomic groups, no difference could be detected for distal shunt placement techniques (p = 0.207, Table 4). However, high-income countries place the proximal catheter significantly less often right trigonal compared to middle- or low-income countries (44.8% vs. 76.3% vs. 66.7%, p = 0.004, Table 4). They also use significantly more often navigation (28.7% vs. 5.0% vs. 0.0%, p = 0.006, Table 4) or ultrasound guidance (13.0% vs. 5.0% vs. 0.0%, p = 0.006, Table 4) compared to middle- or low-income countries. The same difference can be detected between the continents. The respondents in North America and Europe use significantly more often navigation (27.6% and 31.2% vs. 0.0% vs. 0.0% vs. 11.5%, p = 0.043, Table 5) or ultrasound guidance (15.3% and 6.2% vs. 0.0% vs. 0.0% vs. 3.8%, p = 0.043, Table 5) compared to Africa, South America, and Asia.
Significantly more responders from North America and Europe place the distal shunt via laparoscopy compared to Africa, Asia, and South America (9.1% and 4.8% vs. 0% for the rest, p = 0.009, Table 5).
Discussion
Based on this international survey with 139 participants, most of the respondents (n = 104, 74.8%) use a mini-laparotomy for distal shunt insertion in children. No difference for distal VPS placement techniques between the different socioeconomic regions could be detected.
Although over half of the participants (n = 75, 54.0%) do not believe in a better outcome using laparoscopy over mini-laparotomy, most (n = 80, 57.6%) think that further studies on this topic are necessary.
Distal placement
Traditionally, distal VPS insertion is performed by an open mini-laparotomy. However, several studies in adults have recently proven that laparoscopic VPS insertion can significantly reduce the risk of distal shunt failures due to abdominal malpositioning, and shorter operating time [12, 17, 18]. Phan et al. [15] showed in their systematic review and meta-analysis that laparoscopic VPS placement has a significantly lower rate of distal obstruction and malfunction; however, this data is only limited to adults. In the pediatric population, the data is scarce, consisting mainly of retrospective cohort analysis. These studies showed that laparoscopic VPS placement is safe in children and a possible alternative to the traditional mini-laparotomy and suggest an improvement in outcome [1, 9, 10, 19,20,21,22,23]. Laparoscopy has been shown to have very low failure rates, with some studies reporting no distal failure [21, 24]. However, some studies such as the study by Yu et al. [9] also included a pre-selected subset of pediatric patients with previous shunt malfunctions undergoing revision surgery. In their study, 45% of patients were not safely amenable to laparoscopic insertion due to extensive adhesions and had to be converted to an open laparotomy or even to a ventriculopleural shunt. In such a subgroup of pediatric patients, the risks and complications are increased compared to regular shunt insertions and could skew the risk perception of laparoscopic shunt placement in children [9]. Moreover, historically, laparoscopy in children < 1 year used to be considered too dangerous due to their thin abdominal wall, thin tissue, and low weight (< 5 kg) [1, 10]. However, two studies could show that laparoscopic VPS insertion is safe in children < 1 year and below the weight of 5 kg [22, 23]. The main goal of laparoscopic VPS placement is to reduce complications, especially distal catheter misplacement, and failure rates and improve surgical safety. The main advantage of laparoscopy compared to mini-laparotomy is that the shunt tip can be placed under vision into the peritoneum and that it leads to a smaller incision and smaller opening of the peritoneum. Furthermore, possible adhesions, leading to shunt dysfunction, are more readily detected and the shunt can be optimally placed. Several studies describe the successful use of laparoscopic shunt insertion for complex and complicative cases after several revisions or abdominal surgery [10, 20, 25,26,27,28,29]. In our survey, 59.7% (n = 83) of all participating neurosurgeons would use the same method again for revision surgery; however, most of them also mentioned they would consider changing their technique depending on the type of shunt failure and individual patient history. Moreover, we think the team should perform surgery with the technique they are most familiar with and, in case of laparoscopic surgery in children, especially neonates or high-risk patients, laparoscopy should be performed by an experienced pediatric surgeon [19]. Additionally, laparoscopic VPS insertion can be of advantage in obese patients, as a mini-laparotomy in these patients is challenging, often resulting in a larger incision and difficulties identifying the different anatomical layers [18]. This is important as the prevalence of obese children and young adults is rising, resulting in pediatric neurosurgeons being more often confronted with these patients [30].
Another commonly used VPS insertion technique is by using a trocar. In our survey, 21.6% (n = 30) of respondents reported using this as their standard technique. This technique uses a single trocar, which is blindly introduced into the peritoneal cavity. There is only one comparative study, published by our group, comparing trocar-assisted to laparoscopic distal VPS placement. Trocar-assisted placement had a non-statistically significantly higher rate of distal malfunction and distal complications compared with laparoscopic-guided shunt placement [14].
In the present survey, a significant difference between the continents for the placement technique of the distal catheter (p = 0.009) could be detected; however, due to the low number (n = 5) of neurosurgeons who primarily insert VPS laparoscopically, a bias cannot be avoided. Furthermore, most of the participants practice neurosurgery in Europe, which could skew the results and might only reflect the current practice in this region. In general, laparoscopic surgery is less often used in low- and middle-income countries. Studies have identified several causes for this, such as lack of equipment and personnel, as well as sociocultural barriers, which might explain the differences we observed between the different socioeconomic regions in our survey [31, 32].
Proximal placement
According to the results of this survey, the difference between proximal catheter placement in the right trigonum or the frontal horn is marginal (n = 76, 54.7% vs. n = 63, 45.3%). It has been widely debated whether trigonal shunt placement has a higher risk of failure compared to frontal placement, mainly due to the proximity of the choroid plexus, which could cause obstruction of the proximal catheter. However, no clear consensus exists, which is reflected in the responses given in this survey [8, 33,34,35,36,37].
Most of the respondents (n = 104, 65.0%) preferred freehand shunt placement, followed by navigation (n = 35, 21.9%) and ultrasound (n = 17, 10.6%) guidance. Recently, several studies have shown that freehand shunt placement is significantly associated with a higher shunt misplacement rate and higher early revision rate compared to either navigation or ultrasound-guided placement [38,39,40,41,42]. These answers in this survey do not reflect the findings in the current literature; however, this could be due to the recent nature and the quality of these studies.
Limitations
This study is a survey and is inherent to all limitations of such a study. Self-reported data represents an unavoidable limitation. Moreover, the response rate might be low with a total of 139, which could introduce a certain bias and might not be representative of the whole neurosurgical community. Most of the participating neurosurgeons practice in Europe, limiting the results to this socioeconomic region and might not be reflecting the practice in other continents especially in low-income countries.
Conclusion
To our knowledge, this is the first international survey investigating the practice of distal shunt placement in children. According to the literature and our survey, mini-laparotomy is overall still the standard technique for distal shunt placement in children; however, laparoscopy seems to have advantages especially in patients with previous abdominal surgery. Most of the respondents do not believe that the distal VPS placement technique influences the outcome; however, they agree that more research investigating this is necessary.
Data Availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, upon reasonable request.
References
Handler MH, Callahan B (2008) Laparoscopic placement of distal ventriculoperitoneal shunt catheters. J Neurosurg Pediatr 2:282–285. https://doi.org/10.3171/PED.2008.2.10.282
Rymarczuk GN, Keating RF, Coughlin DJ et al (2020) A comparison of ventriculoperitoneal and ventriculoatrial shunts in a population of 544 consecutive pediatric patients. Neurosurgery 87:80–85. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuros/nyz387
Hanak BW, Bonow RH, Harris CA, Browd SR (2017) Cerebrospinal fluid shunting complications in children. Pediatr Neurosurg 52:381–400. https://doi.org/10.1159/000452840
Kahle KT, Kulkarni AV, Limbrick DD, Warf BC (2016) Hydrocephalus in children. Lancet Lond Engl 387:788–799. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60694-8
Browd SR, Ragel BT, Gottfried ON, Kestle JRW (2006) Failure of cerebrospinal fluid shunts: part I: obstruction and mechanical failure. Pediatr Neurol 34:83–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pediatrneurol.2005.05.020
Riva-Cambrin J, Kestle JRW, Holubkov R et al (2016) Risk factors for shunt malfunction in pediatric hydrocephalus: a multicenter prospective cohort study. J Neurosurg Pediatr 17:382–390. https://doi.org/10.3171/2015.6.PEDS14670
Kestle J, Drake J, Milner R et al (2000) Long-term follow-up data from the shunt design trial. Pediatr Neurosurg 33:230–236. https://doi.org/10.1159/000055960
Stone JJ, Walker CT, Jacobson M et al (2013) Revision rate of pediatric ventriculoperitoneal shunts after 15 years: clinical article. J Neurosurg Pediatr 11:15–19. https://doi.org/10.3171/2012.9.PEDS1298
Yu S, Bensard DD, Partrick DA et al (2006) Laparoscopic guidance or revision of ventriculoperitoneal shunts in children. JSLS 10:122–125
Bani A, Hassler WE (2006) Laparoscopy-guided insertion of peritoneal catheters in ventriculoperitoneal shunt procedures: analysis of 39 children. Pediatr Neurosurg 42:156–158. https://doi.org/10.1159/000091858
Basauri L, Selman JM, Lizana C (1993) Peritoneal catheter insertion using laparoscopic guidance. Pediatr Neurosurg 19:109–110. https://doi.org/10.1159/000120711
Roth J, Sagie B, Szold A, Elran H (2007) Laparoscopic versus non-laparoscopic-assisted ventriculoperitoneal shunt placement in adults. A retrospective analysis. Surg Neurol 68:177–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surneu.2006.10.069. (discussion 184)
Naftel RP, Argo JL, Shannon CN et al (2011) Laparoscopic versus open insertion of the peritoneal catheter in ventriculoperitoneal shunt placement: review of 810 consecutive cases. J Neurosurg 115:151–158. https://doi.org/10.3171/2011.1.JNS101492
Serafimova M, Soleman J, Stoessel T et al (2021) Peritoneal insertion of shunts in children: comparison between trocar and laparoscopically guided insertion. Childs Nerv Syst 37:115–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-020-04760-x
Phan S, Liao J, Jia F et al (2016) Laparotomy vs minimally invasive laparoscopic ventriculoperitoneal shunt placement for hydrocephalus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 140:26–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2015.10.025
World Bank (2020) World Bank list of economies. https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups
Alyeldien A, Jung S, Lienert M et al (2016) Laparoscopic insertion of the peritoneal catheter in ventriculoperitoneal shunting. Review of 405 consecutive cases. Int J Surg 33:72–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.07.052
Cohen-Inbar O, Krausz M, Zaaroor M, Mahajna A (2014) Laparoscopic implantation of distal peritoneal ventriculoperitoneal shunt catheter: a comparative study. J Neurol Surg Part Cent Eur Neurosurg 75:392–397. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1371516
Almetaher HA, Shadad MN, Hassan HS, Elhalaby EA (2020) Laparoscopic insertion and revision of ventriculo-peritoneal shunts in children. J Pediatr Endosc Surg 2:195–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42804-020-00071-9
Fahy AS, Tung S, Lamberti-Pasculli M et al (2019) Laparoscopic revision of ventriculoperitoneal shunts in pediatric patients may result in fewer subsequent peritoneal revisions. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 29:82–87. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2018.0128
Hanna RS, Essa AA, Makhlouf GA, Helmy AA (2019) Comparative study between laparoscopic and open techniques for insertion of ventriculperitoneal shunt for treatment of congenital hydrocephalus. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 29:109–113. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2017.0594
Heye P, Su YS, Flanders TM et al (2020) Laparoscopy assisted ventriculoperitoneal shunt placement in children. J Pediatr Surg 55:296–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2019.10.036
Soleman J, Schneider CA, Pfeifle VA et al (2017) Laparoscopic-assisted ventriculoperitoneal shunt placement in children younger than the age of 1 year. World Neurosurg 99:656–661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2016.12.075
Serafimova M, Soleman J, Stoessel T et al (2021) Peritoneal insertion of shunts in children: comparison between trocar and laparoscopically guided insertion. Childs Nerv Syst ChNS Off J Int Soc Pediatr Neurosurg 37:115–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-020-04760-x
Jensen A, Grewal H, Sahr SM, Bierbrauer KS (2004) Laparoscopy is useful for successful distal ventriculoperitoneal shunt placement in children with previous abdominal surgery. Pediatr Endosurgery Innov Tech 8:45–50. https://doi.org/10.1089/109264104773513133
Jea A, Al-Otibi M, Bonnard A, Drake JM (2007) Laparoscopy-assisted ventriculoperitoneal shunt surgery in children: a series of 11 cases. J Neurosurg Pediatr 106:421–425. https://doi.org/10.3171/ped.2007.106.6.421
Johnson B, Pimpalwar A (2009) Laparoscopic-assisted placement of ventriculo-peritoneal shunt tips in children with multiple previous open abdominal ventriculo-peritoneal shunt surgeries. Eur J Pediatr Surg 19:79–82. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2008-1039159
Martin K, Baird R, Farmer J-P et al (2011) The use of laparoscopy in ventriculoperitoneal shunt revisions. J Pediatr Surg 46:2146–2150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2011.07.001
Schukfeh N, Tschan CA, Kuebler JF et al (2009) Laparoscopically assisted ventriculoperitoneal shunt placement in infants with previous multiple abdominal operations. Eur J Pediatr Surg 19:168–170. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0029-1202257
Fryar CD, Carroll MD, Ogden CL (2018) Prevalence of overweight, obesity, and severe obesity among children and adolescents aged 2–19 years: United States, 1963–1965 through 2015–2016
Chao TE, Mandigo M, Opoku-Anane J, Maine R (2016) Systematic review of laparoscopic surgery in low- and middle-income countries: benefits, challenges, and strategies. Surg Endosc 30:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4201-2
Choy I, Kitto S, Adu-Aryee N, Okrainec A (2013) Barriers to the uptake of laparoscopic surgery in a lower-middle-income country. Surg Endosc 27:4009–4015. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-3019-z
Tuli S, Wigg M, Math M, Lamberti-Pasculli M (2000) Risk factors for repeated cerebrospinal shunt failures in pediatric patients with hydrocephalus. J Neurosurg 92:8
Farahmand D, Hilmarsson H, Hogfeldt M, Tisell M (2009) Perioperative risk factors for short term shunt revisions in adult hydrocephalus patients. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 80:1248–1253. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.2007.141416
Albright AL (1988) Function of parietal and frontal shunts in childhood hydrocephalus. J Neurosurg 69:4
Tuli S, O’Hayon B, Drake J et al (1999) Change in ventricular size and effect of ventricular catheter placement in pediatric patients with shunted hydrocephalus. Neurosurgery 45:1329–1335. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006123-199912000-00012
Keykhosravi E, Shahmohammadi MR, Rezaee H et al (2021) Strengths and weaknesses of frontal versus occipital ventriculoperitoneal shunt placement: a systematic review. Neurosurg Rev 44:1869–1875. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-020-01391-3
Wilson TJ, McCoy KE, Al-Holou WN et al (2016) Comparison of the accuracy and proximal shunt failure rate of freehand placement versus intraoperative guidance in parietooccipital ventricular catheter placement. Neurosurg Focus 41:E10. https://doi.org/10.3171/2016.5.FOCUS16159
Huyette DR, Turnbow BJ, Kaufman C et al (2008) Accuracy of the freehand pass technique for ventriculostomy catheter placement: retrospective assessment using computed tomography scans. J Neurosurg 108:88–91. https://doi.org/10.3171/JNS/2008/108/01/0088
Gilard V, Magne N, Gerardin E et al (2017) Comparison of electromagnetic neuronavigation system and free-hand method for ventricular catheter placement in internal shunt. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 158:93–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2017.05.007
Hayhurst C, Beems T, Jenkinson MD et al (2010) Effect of electromagnetic-navigated shunt placement on failure rates: a prospective multicenter study: clinical article. J Neurosurg 113:1273–1278. https://doi.org/10.3171/2010.3.JNS091237
Leu S, Kamenova M, Mariani L, Soleman J (2021) Ultrasound-guided insertion of the ventricular catheter in ventriculoperitoneal shunt surgery: evaluation of accuracy and feasibility in a prospective cohort. J Neurol Surg Part Cent Eur Neurosurg 82:009–017. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1714388
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all responders for filling out this survey. Our special thanks go to Dr. Ganesanlingam Narenthiran of the Neurosurgery Research Listserv, the European Association of Neurosurgical Societies, the Swiss Society for Neurosurgery, and the Swiss Young Neurosurgeons Society for distributing our survey among their members. We thank all responders for taking the time to fill in this questionnaire. Additional thanks go to the following: Abdullah, Hadi Mohammed; Agrawal, Harshal; Amorim, Andreia; Apostolopoulou, Katerina; Ashour, Khalid M.; Auer, Christian; Baeesa, Saleh Salem; Brennan, Walter; Busch, Stefan; Canheu, Alexandre; Chamilos, Christos; Chandrachari, Komal Prasad; Chandrashekar, Raman; Cornips, Erwin; Crimmins, Darach William; Cristino, Nuno; De Paiva Cavalcante, Tiago; De Vloo, Philippe; Fimic, Miroslav; Frassanito, Paolo; Frič, Radek; Germanò, Antonino; Gimbert, Edouard; Gimenez Mendez, Carlos Daniel; Giordano, Flavio; Gjurasin, Miroslav; Goodden, John; Gopalakrishnan, C. V.; Grotenhuis, J.A.; Hinojosa, José; Horn, Frantisek; Jabang, John N.; Jecko, Vincent; Kahilogullari, Gokmen; Kirollos, Ramez; Kozyrev, Danil A.; Kwiatkowski, Stanislaw; Lawson McLean, Aaron; Machado, Maria João; Márquez, Rivas Javier; Marupudi, Neena; Morota, Nobuhito; Najjar, Marwan; Nestler, Ulf; Nga, Vincent; Oduro, Kenneth; Oikonomidis, Vasileios; Owagbemi, Oluwafemi F.; Papaevangelou, Georgios; Ramirez Reyes, Alma Griselda; Riazi, Ali; Ribeirovaz, Jose-Geraldo; Sagarribay, Amets; Shuntov, Blagoj; Spennato, Pietro; Sweeney, Kieron; Syrmos, Nikolaos; Talamonti, Giuseppe; Tejada, Sonia; Tsitsopoulos, Parmenion; Virendra Deo, Sinha; Wegoye, Emmanuel; Woerdeman, Peter; Xhumari, Artur; Zakaria, Zaitun; Zaki, Hesham; and Zanon, Collange Nelci.
Funding
Open access funding provided by University of Basel.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conceptualization: J.S., R.G., and L.G.; methodology: L.R. and L.G.; data curation: L.R. and L.G.; writing and preparation of original draft: L.R.; writing including review and editing: all authors; supervision: J.S. and R.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval
No approval of an ethics board is required as this study is a survey.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare they have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Ruf, L., Greuter, L., Guzman, R. et al. Distal shunt placement in pediatric ventriculoperitoneal shunt surgery: an international survey of practice. Childs Nerv Syst 39, 1555–1563 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-023-05855-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-023-05855-x