{Reference Type}: Journal Article
{Title}: Treatment of hydrocephalus following fetal repair of myelomeningocele: comparing endoscopic third ventriculostomy with choroid plexus cauterization to ventricular shunting.
{Author}: Izah J;Haizel-Cobbina J;Zhao S;Vance EH;Dunlap M;Gannon SR;Liles C;Yengo-Kahn AM;Pontell ME;Naftel RP;Wellons JC;Dewan MC;
{Journal}: J Neurosurg Pediatr
{Volume}: 34
{Issue}: 3
{Year}: 2024 Sep 1
{Factor}: 2.713
{DOI}: 10.3171/2024.5.PEDS24171
{Abstract}: OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare clinical and craniometric outcomes of patients treated for hydrocephalus following fetal myelomeningocele repair (fMMR) via a ventriculoperitoneal shunt (VPS) or endoscopic third ventriculostomy with choroid plexus cauterization (ETV/CPC).
METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of children who were treated for hydrocephalus following fMMR via VPS or ETV with or without CPC (ETV ± CPC) at Vanderbilt between 2012 and 2021. The primary outcomes were treatment failure and time to failure (TTF). Secondary outcomes included changes in hydrocephalus metrics (fronto-occipital horn ratio [FOHR] and head circumference measurements) and healthcare resource utilization (number of hospital admissions, clinic visits, and neuroimaging findings).
RESULTS: Among 88 patients who underwent fMMR, 37 (42%) required permanent CSF diversion, of whom 19 received treatment at the authors' institution. Twelve patients underwent ETV ± CPC, and 7 underwent VPS placement at a median corrected age of 23 weeks versus 1 week (p = 0.002). The preoperative median head circumference percentiles and z-scores for patients in the ETV ± CPC cohort were similar to those of the VPS cohort (percentiles: 98.5 vs 94.0, p = 0.064; z-scores: 2.32 vs 1.60, p = 0.111). There was no difference in preoperative median FOHR measurements between the two cohorts (0.57 vs 0.59, p = 0.53). At 6 months postoperatively, the median head circumference percentile and z-score for the ETV ± CPC cohort remained similar between the two cohorts (percentiles: 98.0 vs 67.5, p = 0.315; z-scores: 2.12 vs 0.52, p = 0.307). There was no difference in the change in FOHR (-0.06 vs -0.09, p = 0.37) and change in head circumference percentile (-1.33 vs -28.6, p = 0.058) between the cohorts 6 months after the index CSF diversion procedure. One patient in the ETV ± CPC cohort experienced a seizure and a nonoperative subdural hemorrhage postoperatively; no other complications were observed. Six of the 7 patients in the VPS cohort required shunt revision with a median TTF of 9.8 months while 2 of the 12 ETV ± CPC patients required a repeat ETV at a median of 17.5 months (86% vs 17%, p = 0.013). The median number of hydrocephalus-related hospital readmissions was significantly lower in the ETV ± CPC cohort than in the VPS cohort (0 vs 1, p = 0.006). The ETV ± CPC cohort had fewer CT scans (0 vs 2, p = 0.004) and radiographs (0 vs 2, p < 0.001) than the VPS cohort.
CONCLUSIONS: In a single-center cohort, hydrocephalic fMMR patients treated via ETV ± CPC remained shunt free, while a majority of patients receiving an upfront shunt required revision. This is the first study comparing ETV ± CPC with VPS in the fMMR hydrocephalus population. While larger, multicenter studies are needed, these results suggest that ETV/CPC may be a preferred means of CSF diversion following fMMR.