Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Risk Factors for Ventriculoperitoneal Shunt Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Risk Factors for Ventriculoperitoneal Shunt Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Do you wish to request the book?
Risk Factors for Ventriculoperitoneal Shunt Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Risk Factors for Ventriculoperitoneal Shunt Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
2025
Overview
Background: Ventriculoperitoneal shunting (VPS) is the mainstay of treatment for most forms of hydrocephalus; VPS infection (VPSI) is a leading cause of shunt-related morbidity and mortality. A meta-analysis of the existing literature on risk factors for VPSI is currently lacking. Herein, the authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the role of different clinical factors in the development of VPSI. Methods: A systematic search in the PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases was performed to identify studies comparing patients developing VPSI to controls. The following data were extracted where available: number of patients who developed VPSI vs. number of patients with a regular course, demographics (gender, age at VPS insertion, age > 18 years), average length of hospital stay before shunt implant (days), aetiology of hydrocephalus (tumour-associated hydrocephalus; post-haemorrhagic hydrocephalus; congenital hydrocephalus; spinal dysraphism-associated hydrocephalus; post-infectious hydrocephalus; post-traumatic hydrocephalus; post-craniotomy hydrocephalus), and hydrocephalus type (obstructive hydrocephalus, communicating hydrocephalus, normal-pressure hydrocephalus—NPH). Results: Five studies including 2333 patients (225 with VPS infection) were analysed. Tumour-related hydrocephalus was linked to a lower infection risk (OR 0.418; p < 0.001), while congenital hydrocephalus (OR 2.502; p < 0.001) and spinal dysraphism (OR 2.359; p < 0.001) increased the risk. Conclusions: VPSI represents a serious complication after shunt surgery. Our meta-analysis identifies three key factors influencing the risk of VPSI. VPS-centred, large multicentre prospective studies are needed to possibly confirm the role of the factors we identified and to identify additional ones, enabling earlier detection of VPSI and allowing for better patient care.
