Tag: Ventriculoperitoneal shunt malfunction

Neurosurgery 87:939–948, 2020

Thermal flow evaluation (TFE) is a non-invasive method to assess ventriculoperitoneal shunt function. Flow detected by TFE is a negative predictor of the need for revision surgery. Further optimization of testing protocols, evaluation in multiple centers, and integration with clinical and imaging impressions prompted the current study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of 2 TFE protocols, with micropumper (TFE+MP) or without (TFE-only), to neuro-imaging in patients emergently presenting with symptoms concerning for shunt malfunction.

METHODS: We performed a prospective multicenter operator-blinded trial of a consecutive series of patients who underwent evaluation for shunt malfunction. TFE was performed, and preimaging clinician impressions and imaging results were recorded. The primary outcome was shunt obstruction requiring neurosurgical revision within 7 d. Noninferiority of the sensitivity of TFE vs neuro-imaging for detecting shunt obstruction was tested using a prospectively determined a priori margin of −2.5%.

RESULTS: We enrolled 406 patients at 10 centers. Of these, 68/348 (20%) evaluated with TFE+MP and 30/215 (14%) with TFE-only had shunt obstruction. The sensitivity for detecting obstruction was 100% (95% CI: 88%-100%) for TFE-only, 90% (95% CI: 80%-96%) for TFE+MP, 76% (95% CI: 65%-86%) for imaging in TFE+MP cohort, and 77%(95% CI: 58%- 90%) for imaging in the TFE-only cohort. Difference in sensitivities between TFE methods and imaging did not exceed the non-inferiority margin.

CONCLUSION: TFE is non-inferior to imaging in ruling out shunt malfunction and may help avoid imaging and other steps. For this purpose, TFE only is favored over TFE+MP.

Neurosurgery, Volume 85, Issue 2, August 2019, Pages 240–249

While a noninvasive flow determination would be desirable in the diagnosis of cerebrospinal fluid shunt malfunction, existing studies have not yet defined a role for thermal flow detection.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a revised test protocol using a micropumper designed to transiently enhance flow during thermal testing to determine whether thermal detection of flow is associated with progression to shunt revision surgery.

METHODS: Eighty-two unique tests were performed in 71 shunts. The primary outcome, need for revision within 7 d of testing, was compared with results of micropumper-augmented thermal flow detection. Statistical analysis was based on blind interpretation of test results and raw temperature data recorded during testing.

RESULTS: The test was sensitive (73%) and specific (68%) in predicting need for revision, with 5.6-fold higher probability of revision when flow was not detected. Negative predictive value in our sample was 94.2%. The probability of not requiring revision increased with increasing total temperature drop. Analysis of various possible thresholds showed that the optimal temperature cutoff may be lower than suggested by the manufacturer (0.125◦C vs 0.2◦C).

CONCLUSION: This is the first study to report a strong association between thermal flow evaluation and a clinical impression that a shunt is not malfunctioning. The current recommended threshold may increase the false positive rate unnecessarily, and as clinicians gain experience with the method, they may find value in examining the temperature curves themselves. Multicenter studies are suggested to further define a role for this diagnostic test.