Ventriculoperitoneal shunting for idiopathic intracranial hypertension

Bynke, Gunnel; Zemack, Göran; Bynke, Hans; Romner, Bertil

doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2004.12.047

Cited by 16 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There are, however, conflicting reports of shunt failure and revision rates. This may reflect the small size of previous cohorts studied (17-37 subjects) (10,12,(14)(15)(16)(17). Additionally, the number of patients enjoying visual recovery, typically the principal indication for CSF diversion in IIH, is very variable, between 10 and 71% (15,16).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 72%

“…This may reflect the small size of previous cohorts studied (17-37 subjects) (10,12,(14)(15)(16)(17). Additionally, the number of patients enjoying visual recovery, typically the principal indication for CSF diversion in IIH, is very variable, between 10 and 71% (15,16). Later shunt failure is reported to occur in up to 77% of patients usually reflecting shunt obstruction (65% of revisions) or overdrainage, causing low-pressure headaches (15% of revisions) (12).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 82%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Is cerebrospinal fluid shunting in idiopathic intracranial hypertension worthwhile? A 10-year review

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We conclude that CSF diversion reduces visual decline and improves visual acuity. Unfortunately, headache remained in the majority of patients and low-pressure headache frequently complicated surgery. Over half of the patients required shunt revision with the majority of these requiring multiple revisions. We suggest that CSF shunting should be conducted as a last resort in those with otherwise untreatable, rapidly declining vision. Alternative treatments, such as weight reduction, may be more effective with less associated morbidity.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 72%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 82%

Is cerebrospinal fluid shunting in idiopathic intracranial hypertension worthwhile? A 10-year review

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Their use is increasing [61]. Though CSF shunting is usually an effective symptomatic therapy and prevents visual deterioration in medically refractory IIH [62,63], mechanical shunt dysfunctions, infections, the need for repeated revisions, and high overall failure rate limit widespread use in IIH. The stereotactic ventriculoperitoneal shunting (SVPS) technique was recently introduced for treating patients with intracranial hypertensive disorders within a small ventricular system such as IIH due to the high rate of revisions recorded with the lumboperitoneal shunts [64,65].…”

Section: Cerebrospinal Fluid Shunting Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 97%

Idiopathic intracranial hypertension (pseudotumor cerebri)

Randhawa

Stavern

2008

Current Opinion in Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In patients who have been diagnosed with idiopathic intracranial hypertension, when medical therapy fails or when visual dysfunction deteriorates, surgical therapies should be considered. The main procedures performed include lumboperitoneal shunt (LPS) [1][2][3], ventriculoperitoneal shunt (VPS) [3][4][5][6][7], optic nerve sheath fenestration (ONSF) [8][9][10][11] and dural venous sinus stenting (DVSS) [12]. With medical intervention, disease course is generally self-limiting.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%