Optimal timing and sequence of ventriculoperitoneal shunt and gastrostomy placement

• Published in: Neurological research (New York) Vol. 43; no. 9; pp. 708 - 714
• Main Authors: Behbahani, Mandana, Rosinski, Clayton L., Chaudhry, Nauman S., Chaker, Anisse N., Chiu, Ryan G., Du, Xinjian, Mehta, Ankit I., Arnone, Gregory D., Amin-Hanjani, Sepideh
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Taylor & Francis 02-09-2021
• Subjects: Aged; cerebrospinal fluid; Female; gastrostomy; Gastrostomy - adverse effects; Gastrostomy - methods; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Postoperative Complications - etiology; Reoperation; Retrospective Studies; shunt infection; shunt revision; Ventriculoperitoneal shunt; Ventriculoperitoneal Shunt - adverse effects; Ventriculoperitoneal Shunt - methods; gastrostomy; shunt infection; Ventriculoperitoneal shunt; shunt revision; cerebrospinal fluid
• ISSN: 0161-6412; 1743-1328
• DOI: 10.1080/01616412.2021.1922174

Background: The optimal timing of ventriculoperitoneal shunt (VPS) and gastrostomy placement, relative to the safety of simultaneous versus staged surgery, has not been clearly delineated in the literature.
Objective: To study the optimal inter-procedural timing relative to distal VPS infection and pertinent reoperation.
Methods: A fifteen-year, retrospective, single-center study was conducted on adults undergoing VPS and gastrostomy within 30-days. Patients were grouped according to inter-procedural interval: 0-24 hr (immediate), 24 hr-7 days (early), and 7-30 days (delayed). The primary endpoint of the study was VPS infection and distal shunt complications requiring reoperation. Potential predictors of the primary end point (baseline cohort characteristics, procedural factors) were examined with standard statistical methods.
Results: A total of 188 patients met inclusion criteria. The average interval between procedures was 7 ± 6 days, with 43.1% undergoing VPS prior to gastrostomy. Primary endpoint was encountered in 5 patients (2.7%): 1 (5.9%) of 17 patients undergoing immediate placement, 3 (2.8%) of 107 with early placement, and 1 (1.6%) of 64 with delayed placement. Although not statistically significant, 3.7% of patients undergoing VPS first had the primary endpoint, compared to 1.9% of those with gastrostomy. There were no statistically significant associations between the primary outcome and peri-operative CSF counts, gastrostomy modality, hydrocephalus etiology, chronic steroid use, or extended antibiotic administration.
Conclusion: Although the low overall event rate in this cohort precludes definitive determination regarding differential safety, the data generally support a practice of performing the procedures >24-hours apart, with placement of gastrostomy prior to VPS.