title: Comparison of total versus partial revision of primary ventriculoperitoneal shunt failures.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Optimal surgical management of patients presenting with primary shunt failure in the era of neuroendoscopy remains complex. The value of replacing the entire shunt system as opposed to a single shunt component has not been assessed extensively.
  
  
  METHODS
  In a retrospective study, the records of all patients who underwent their first shunt revision due to mechanical obstruction between September 2007 and December 2011 were reviewed. Shunt revisions were classified as total (entire shunt replaced) or partial (only malfunctioning component replaced). Patients having a minimum follow-up of 1 year after primary shunt revision were included in the study. Kaplan-Meier (shunt survival curves) and log-rank analysis were used to compare failure rates between partially and totally revised shunts.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Records of 62 patients in whom cause of primary shunt failure was obstruction (P roximal or distal) were analyzed retrospectively. At the end of follow-up period, 26 out of 28 partial revision group and 22 out of 34 total revision group had shunt failure. The median survival of the shunt in the partial revision and total revision groups was 60 and 270 days, respectively. The method (partial/total revision) related difference in shunt survival duration was statistically significant as shown by log-rank analysis (log-rank test value = 5.94 and P < 0.05).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Partial revision of shunt predisposes to accelerated shunt failure as compared with total revision in cases of obstructed ventriculoperitoneal shunt.
authors: Department of Neurosurgery, Pt. B. D. Sharma University of Health Sciences, Rohtak, India.
authors: Ishwar
authors: I
authors: Singh
authors: Seema
authors: S
authors: Rohilla
authors: Manjulata
authors: M
authors: Kumawat
authors: Manish
authors: M
authors: Goel
keywords: Hydrocephalus; revision; ventriculoperitoneal shunt failure
references: Pediatr Neurosurg. 1991-1992;17(3):155-62
references: 1819331
references: Pediatr Neurosurg. 1991-1992;17(1):2-9
references: 1811706
references: Pediatr Neurosurg. 1990-1991;16(6):287-91
references: 2134737
references: Pediatr Neurosurg. 1998 Apr;28(4):173-6
references: 9732242
references: J Neurosurg. 2000 Jan;92(1):31-8
references: 10616079
references: Neurosurgery. 1994 May;34(5):924-6; discussion 926
references: 8052397
references: Pediatrics. 1998 Jun;101(6):1031-6
references: 9606231
references: Childs Nerv Syst. 1998 Jun;14(6):271-5
references: 9694339
references: Pediatr Neurosurg. 1993 Sep-Oct;19(5):233-41; discussion 242
references: 8398847
references: Indian J Pediatr. 2005 Oct;72(10):843-7
references: 16272655
references: Pediatr Neurosurg. 1995;23(3):133-9
references: 8751294
references: Pediatr Neurosurg. 1998 Aug;29(2):57-9
references: 9792956
references: Neurosurgery. 1998 Aug;43(2):294-303; discussion 303-5
references: 9696082
references: Pediatr Neurosurg. 2003 Jan;38(1):34-40
references: 12476025
references: Neurosurgery. 1999 Dec;45(6):1361-6; discussion 1366-7
references: 10598704
references: Childs Nerv Syst. 2000 Nov;16(10-11):800-4
references: 11151733
references: Neurosurgery. 1999 Dec;45(6):1399-408; discussion 1408-11
references: 10598708