Endoscopic third ventriculostomy compared to ventriculoperitoneal shunt as treatment for idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract

Background: The accepted treatment for idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH) is the insertion of a ventriculoperitoneal shunt (VPS). Recently, some studies examined endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV) for the treatment of iNPH with controversial results. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare ETV to VPS regarding complications and outcome for the treatment of iNPH.

Methods: We searched Medline, Embase and Scopus. Due to the scarcity of data, we did not include only randomized controlled trials, but also retro- and prospective studies. The primary outcome was failure of cerebrospinal fluid diversion method. Secondary endpoints were clinical postoperative improvement rate, morbidity and mortality.

Results: Out of 311 screened studies, three were included in the quantitative analysis including one RCT and two retrospective cohort studies. No statistically significant difference concerning failure rate of CSF diversion method (ETV 27.5% vs. VPS 33.2%, RR 1.19, 95% CI [0.69-2.04], p = 0.52) or postoperative improvement was found (68% for ETV vs. 72.8% for VPS, RR 0.81, 95% CI [0.57-1.16], p = 0.26). ETV showed a significantly lower complication rate compared to VPS (7.5% vs. 51.1%, RR 0.25, 95% CI [0.08-0.76], p = 0.02).

Conclusion: ETV and VPS did not differ significantly regarding their failure rate for iNPH, while ETV showed a significantly lower complication rate than VPS. However, the data available is scarce with only one RCT investigating this important matter. Further well-designed trials are necessary to investigate the clinical outcome of ETV in iNPH.

Trial registration number: PROSPERO (ID: CRD42020199173).