Zobrazit minimální záznam

dc.contributor.authorKrejčí, Ondřej
dc.contributor.authorKrejčí, Tomáš
dc.contributor.authorMrůzek, Michael
dc.contributor.authorVečeřa, Zdeněk
dc.contributor.authorŠalounová, Dana
dc.contributor.authorLipina, Radim
dc.date.accessioned2021-06-25T07:45:21Z
dc.date.available2021-06-25T07:45:21Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.identifier.citationWorld Neurosurgery. 2021, vol. 148, p. E425-E435.cs
dc.identifier.issn1878-8750
dc.identifier.issn1878-8769
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10084/143122
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVE: Primary fourth ventricle outlet obstruction (PFVOO) is a rare cause of hydrocephalus with an unclear etiopathogenesis, and thus, consensus regarding the recommended treatment protocol is lacking. This study aims to summarize current knowledge of this condition in the light of our own treatment experience. METHODS: Retrospective analysis was carried out of all patients treated for noncommunicating tetraventricular hydrocephalus between 2006 and 2019, from which a subgroup of patients with PFVOO was created. A literature review of PFVOO cases was also carried out. RESULTS: A total of 62 patients with PFVOO were discovered, of whom 8 were treated at our institution, representing 3.8% of our patients with noncommunicating hydrocephalus. Patients most commonly presented with headaches, gait disturbance, or symptoms of intracranial hypertension. The mean follow-up duration was 75.4 months among our patients and 29.9 months in the literature. Most patients (54.8%) were treated by endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV), with the remainder undergoing suboccipital craniotomy alone (17.7%) or in combination with shunt surgery (9.7%), or endoscopic magendieplasty (12.9%). Treatment failure was noted in 28.6% of ETVs and 9% of craniotomies. No failures were recorded after endoscopic magendieplasty. The risk of treatment failure was found to be significantly higher with ETV compared with other treatment modalities (P < 0.0005). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the fact that PFVOO can be defined as an obstructive hydrocephalus, there seems to be a higher risk of ETV failure in such cases. The alternative treatment modalities presented are still recommended. Confirmation of these findings requires a larger multicenter study.cs
dc.language.isoencs
dc.publisherElseviercs
dc.relation.ispartofseriesWorld Neurosurgerycs
dc.relation.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2021.01.008cs
dc.rights© 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.cs
dc.subjectendoscopic third ventriculostomycs
dc.subjectfourth ventricular outlet obstructioncs
dc.subjecthydrocephaluscs
dc.subjectLuschka foramencs
dc.subjectMagendie foramencs
dc.subjectneuroendoscopycs
dc.titleHydrocephalus caused by primary fourth ventricle outlet obstruction: Our experience and literature reviewcs
dc.typearticlecs
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.wneu.2021.01.008
dc.type.statusPeer-reviewedcs
dc.description.sourceWeb of Sciencecs
dc.description.volume148cs
dc.description.lastpageE435cs
dc.description.firstpageE425cs
dc.identifier.wos000631732900049


Soubory tohoto záznamu

SouboryVelikostFormátZobrazit

K tomuto záznamu nejsou připojeny žádné soubory.

Tento záznam se objevuje v následujících kolekcích

Zobrazit minimální záznam