Laparoscopy Versus Laparotomy for Ventriculoperitoneal Shunt Placement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Rattachement africain : br. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Laparoscopy is a minimally invasive alternative to laparotomy for ventriculoperitoneal shunt. However, recent evidence has renewed the debate over which technique is preferable. Therefore, we aimed to conduct a meta-analysis to compare these procedures. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for studies comparing laparoscopy with laparotomy in patients undergoing ventriculoperitoneal shunt until August 2024. Outcomes included overall, distal, and proximal shunt failures; intraoperative complications; operation time; length of stay; and estimated blood loss. Statistical analysis was performed using R Studio (version 2024.04.1+748). RESULTS: We included 27 studies with a total of 6390 patients, of whom 2549 (39.9%) underwent laparoscopy. The most common etiologies were normal pressure hydrocephalus (34.1%), subarachnoid hemorrhage (22.0%), and neoplasm (19.4%). Laparoscopy was associated with significant reductions in overall shunt failures (risk ratio [RR] 0.71, 95% CI: 0.54-0.94; I2 = 73%) and distal shunt failures (RR 0.48, 95% CI: 0.31-0.74; I2 = 35%). However, no statistical differences were observed in proximal shunt failure (RR 1.14, 95% CI: 0.90-1.46; I2 = 0%) and intraoperative complications (RR 1.11, 95% CI: 0.51-2.39; I2 = 0%). Moreover, laparoscopy was associated with a shorter operation time (mean difference [MD] -14.76 minutes, 95% CI: -20.54 to -8.98; I2 = 96%) and reduced estimated blood loss (MD -8.93 mL, 95% CI: -14.70 to -3.17; I2 = 56%), although length of stay was similar between groups (MD -0.93 days, 95% CI: -2.05 to 0.19; I2 = 64%). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopy is associated with lower overall and distal shunt failures, as well as reduced operation time and estimated blood loss. These findings suggest that laparoscopy may be preferable to laparotomy.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Laparoscopy Versus Laparotomy for Ventriculoperitoneal Shunt Placement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
- Date Crossref
- 30/04/2025
- Éditeur
- Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Où se fait cette recherche
-
Universidade Federal da Bahia pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
Fundação Bahiana de Infectologia pays non établi dans la noticeInstitution
-
Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo Department of Neurology pays non établi dans la noticeÉtablissement de santé
-
Federal University of Bahia Department of Medicine pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
Bahiana School of Medicine Department of Medicine pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
Universidade Federal da Bahia, Fundação Bahiana de Infectologia et Department of Neurology — Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, avec 2 autres affiliations.
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.