Perioperative external ventricular drainage vs. no-EVD strategy in pediatric posterior fossa tumors—pilot study results

• Published in: Child's nervous system 2023-04, Vol.39 (4), p.895-899
• Main Authors: Krause, Matthias, Meixensberger, Jürgen, von Einsiedel, Hagen Graf, Gräfe, Daniel, Nestler, Ulf
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adolescent; Brain Neoplasms - surgery; Child; Child, Preschool; Drainage - adverse effects; Humans; Hydrocephalus - etiology; Infratentorial Neoplasms - complications; Infratentorial Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging; Infratentorial Neoplasms - surgery; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Neurosciences; Neurosurgery; Original; Original Article; Pilot Projects; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Third Ventricle - pathology; Third Ventricle - surgery; Ventriculostomy - methods
• ISSN: 0256-7040; 1433-0350
• DOI: 10.1007/s00381-022-05819-7

Introduction Pediatric brain tumors of the posterior fossa often present with occlusive hydrocephalus. Endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV) or ventriculoperitoneal shunting (VPS) has been established for definite hydrocephalus treatment. The aim of the study was to analyze the impact and safety of perioperative temporary external ventricular CSF drainage (EVD) placement on postoperative hydrocephalus outcome compared to a no-EVD strategy. Patients and methods In a prospective database, 36 posterior fossa tumor patients of 2–18 years were included with a follow-up of 1 year. Fifty-eight percent presented with preoperative hydrocephalus. Patients were assigned to non-hydrocephalus group: group I ( n  = 15) and to preoperative hydrocephalus, group IIa with EVD placement ( n  = 9), and group IIb without EVD ( n  = 12). Results Median age of patients was 8.1 years (range 3.17 to 16.58 years). One-third of 21 hydrocephalus patients required ETV or VPS ( n  = 7). Occurrence of de novo hydrocephalus in group I after surgery was not observed in our cohort. Age and histology were no confounding factor for EVD placement between group IIa and IIb ( p  = 0.34). The use of EVD did not result in better control of hydrocephalus compared to no-EVD patients considering pre- and postoperative MRI ventricular indices ( p  = 0.4). Perioperative placement of an EVD resulted in a threefold risk for subsequent VPS or ETV (group IIa 55.5% vs group IIb 16.6%): relative risk for EVD patients compared to no-EVD patients with hydrocephalus was 3.3 (CI = 1.06–13.43, p  = 0.09). Conclusion Perioperative EVD placement appears to harbor a threefold relative risk of requiring subsequent permanent CSF diversion in children above 2 years. EVD was not more effective to control ventricular enlargement compared to tumor removal alone. The no-EVD strategy was safe and did not result in postoperative complications. Thus, to evaluate potential adverse effects on hydrocephalus outcome by EVD placement, a prospective study is warranted to falsify the results.