Palliative endoscopic third ventriculostomy for pediatric primary brain tumors: a single-institution case series

View More View Less
  • 1 Departments of Neurological Surgery and
  • | 2 Neurosciences, and
  • | 3 Pediatrics, University of California San Diego, La Jolla; and
  • | 4 Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego, California
Restricted access

Purchase Now

USD  $45.00

JNS + Pediatrics - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $515.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $612.00
Print or Print + Online

OBJECTIVE

Children with nonoperative brain tumors, such as diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas (DIPGs), often have life-threatening hydrocephalus. Palliative shunting is common in such cases but can be complicated by hardware infection and mechanical failure. Endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV) is a minimally invasive alternative to treat hydrocephalus without implanted hardware. Herein, the authors report their institutional experience with palliative ETV for primary pediatric brain tumors.

METHODS

The authors conducted a retrospective review of consecutive patients who had undergone palliative ETV for hydrocephalus secondary to nonresectable primary brain tumors over a 10-year period at Rady Children’s Hospital. Collected variables included age, sex, tumor type, tumor location, presence of leptomeningeal spread, use of a robot for ETV, complications, ETV Success Score (ETVSS), functional status, length of survival, and follow-up time. A successful outcome was defined as an ETV performed without clinically significant perioperative complications or secondary requirement for a new shunt.

RESULTS

Fifteen patients met the study inclusion criteria (11 males, 4 females; average age 7.9 years, range 0.8–21 years). Thirteen patients underwent manual ETV, and 2 patients underwent robotic ETV. Preoperative symptoms included gaze palsy, nausea/vomiting, headache, lethargy, hemiparesis, and seizures. Tumor types included DIPG (3), intraventricular/thalamic glioblastoma (2), and leptomeningeal spread of medulloblastoma (2), anaplastic oligo-/astrocytoma (2), rhabdoid tumor (2), primitive neuroectodermal tumor (1), ganglioglioma (1), pineoblastoma (1), and embryonal carcinoma (1). The mean preoperative ETVSS was 79 ± 8.8. There was 1 perioperative complication, a wound breakdown consistent with refractory hydrocephalus. The mean follow-up was 4.9 ± 5.5 months overall, and mean survival for the patients who died was 3.2 ± 3.6 months. Two patients remained alive at a mean follow-up of 15.7 months. Palliative ETV was successful in 7 patients (47%) and unsuccessful in 8 (53%). While patients with successful ETV were significantly older (11.9 ± 5.6 vs 4.4 ± 4.1 years, p = 0.010), there were no significant differences in preoperative ETVSS (p = 0.796) or postoperative survival (p = 0.476) between the successful and unsuccessful groups. Overall, functional outcomes were similar between the two groups; there was no significant difference in posttreatment Karnofsky Performance Status scores (68.6 ± 19.5 vs 61.3 ± 16.3, p = 0.454), suggesting that including ETV in the treatment algorithm did not worsen outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Palliative ETV is a safe and potentially efficacious treatment option in selected pediatric patients with hydrocephalus from nonoperative brain tumors. Close follow-up, especially in younger children, is required to ensure that patients with refractory symptoms receive appropriate secondary CSF diversion.

ABBREVIATIONS

CSF = cerebrospinal fluid; DIPG = diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma; ETV = endoscopic third ventriculostomy; ETVSS = ETV Success Score; EVD = external ventricular drain; KPS = Karnofsky Performance Status; LM = leptomeningeal metastasis; VPS = ventriculoperitoneal shunt.

Image from Mavridis et al. (pp 404–415).

JNS + Pediatrics - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $515.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $612.00
  • 1

    Beni-Adani L, Biani N, Ben-Sirah L, Constantini S. The occurrence of obstructive vs absorptive hydrocephalus in newborns and infants: relevance to treatment choices. Childs Nerv Syst. 2006;22(12):15431563.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Cohen KJ, Heideman RL, Zhou T, et al. Temozolomide in the treatment of children with newly diagnosed diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas: a report from the Children’s Oncology Group. Neuro Oncol. 2011;13(4):410416.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Chamberlain MC. Pediatric leptomeningeal metastases: outcome following combined therapy. J Child Neurol. 1997;12(1):5359.

  • 4

    Chamberlain MC. A review of leptomeningeal metastases in pediatrics. J Child Neurol. 1995;10(3):191199.

  • 5

    Nigim F, Critchlow JF, Kasper EM. Role of ventriculoperitoneal shunting in patients with neoplasms of the central nervous system: An analysis of 59 cases. Mol Clin Oncol. 2015;3(6):13811386.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Paudel P, Bista P, Pahari DP, Sharma GR. Ventriculoperitoneal shunt complication in pediatric hydrocephalus: risk factor analysis from a single institution in Nepal. Asian J Neurosurg. 2020;15(1):8387.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Hanak BW, Bonow RH, Harris CA, Browd SR. Cerebrospinal fluid shunting complications in children. Pediatr Neurosurg. 2017;52(6):381400.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Sainte-Rose C, Cinalli G, Roux FE, et al. Management of hydrocephalus in pediatric patients with posterior fossa tumors: the role of endoscopic third ventriculostomy. J Neurosurg. 2001;95(5):791797.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Hailong F, Guangfu H, Haibin T, et al. Endoscopic third ventriculostomy in the management of communicating hydrocephalus: a preliminary study. J Neurosurg. 2008;109(5):923930.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Rangel-Castilla L, Barber S, Zhang YJ. The role of endoscopic third ventriculostomy in the treatment of communicating hydrocephalus. World Neurosurg. 2012;77(3-4):555560.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Kulkarni AV, Schiff SJ, Mbabazi-Kabachelor E, et al. Endoscopic treatment versus shunting for infant hydrocephalus in Uganda. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(25):24562464.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Lu L, Chen H, Weng S, Xu Y. Endoscopic third ventriculostomy versus ventriculoperitoneal shunt in patients with obstructive hydrocephalus: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. World Neurosurg. 2019;129:334340.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Siomin V, Cinalli G, Grotenhuis A, et al. Endoscopic third ventriculostomy in patients with cerebrospinal fluid infection and/or hemorrhage. J Neurosurg. 2002;97(3):519524.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Javadpour M, Mallucci C, Brodbelt A, et al. The impact of endoscopic third ventriculostomy on the management of newly diagnosed hydrocephalus in infants. Pediatr Neurosurg. 2001;35(3):131135.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Scarrow AM, Levy EI, Pascucci L, Albright AL. Outcome analysis of endoscopic III ventriculostomy. Childs Nerv Syst. 2000;16(7):442445.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Kulkarni AV, Riva-Cambrin J, Holubkov R, et al. Endoscopic third ventriculostomy in children: prospective, multicenter results from the Hydrocephalus Clinical Research Network. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2016;18(4):423429.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Kulkarni AV, Drake JM, Mallucci CL, et al. Endoscopic third ventriculostomy in the treatment of childhood hydrocephalus. J Pediatr. 2009;155(2):254259.e1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Chen CC, Kasper E, Warnke P. Palliative stereotactic-endoscopic third ventriculostomy for the treatment of obstructive hydrocephalus from cerebral metastasis. Surg Neurol Int. 2011;2:76.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Culley DJ, Berger MS, Shaw D, Geyer R. An analysis of factors determining the need for ventriculoperitoneal shunts after posterior fossa tumor surgery in children. Neurosurgery. 1994;34(3):402408.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Bognár L, Borgulya G, Benke P, Madarassy G. Analysis of CSF shunting procedure requirement in children with posterior fossa tumors. Childs Nerv Syst. 2003;19(5-6):332336.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Dias MS, Albright AL. Management of hydrocephalus complicating childhood posterior fossa tumors. Pediatr Neurosci. 1989;15(6):283290.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    Taylor WA, Todd NV, Leighton SE. CSF drainage in patients with posterior fossa tumours. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 1992;117(1-2):16.

  • 23

    Raimondi AJ, Tomita T. Hydrocephalus and infratentorial tumors. Incidence, clinical picture, and treatment. J Neurosurg. 1981;55(2):174182.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24

    Tamburrini G, Pettorini BL, Massimi L, et al. Endoscopic third ventriculostomy: the best option in the treatment of persistent hydrocephalus after posterior cranial fossa tumour removal?. Childs Nerv Syst. 2008;24(12):14051412.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25

    Kulkarni AV, Drake JM, Kestle JR, et al. Endoscopic third ventriculostomy vs cerebrospinal fluid shunt in the treatment of hydrocephalus in children: a propensity score-adjusted analysis. Neurosurgery. 2010;67(3):588593.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26

    Morelli D, Pirotte B, Lubansu A, et al. Persistent hydrocephalus after early surgical management of posterior fossa tumors in children: is routine preoperative endoscopic third ventriculostomy justified?. J Neurosurg. 2005;103(3)(suppl):247252.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27

    Dewan MC, Lim J, Shannon CN, Wellons JC III. The durability of endoscopic third ventriculostomy and ventriculoperitoneal shunts in children with hydrocephalus following posterior fossa tumor resection: a systematic review and time-to-failure analysis. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2017;19(5):578584.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28

    Kwiek SJ, Mandera M, Baowski P, et al. Endoscopic third ventriculostomy for hydrocephalus: early and late efficacy in relation to aetiology. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2003;145(3):181184.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29

    Nguyen TT, Smith MV, Rodziewicz GS, Lemke SM. Hydrocephalus caused by metastatic brain lesions: treatment by third ventriculostomy. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1999;67(4):552553.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30

    Oka K, Kin Y, Go Y, et al. Neuroendoscopic approach to tectal tumors: a consecutive series. Neurosurg Focus. 1999;6(4):e14.

  • 31

    Gonda DD, Kim TE, Warnke PC, et al. Ventriculoperitoneal shunting versus endoscopic third ventriculostomy in the treatment of patients with hydrocephalus related to metastasis. Surg Neurol Int. 2012;3:97.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32

    Macarthur DC, Buxton N, Punt J, et al. The role of neuroendoscopy in the management of brain tumours. Br J Neurosurg. 2002;16(5):465470.

  • 33

    Li KW, Roonprapunt C, Lawson HC, et al. Endoscopic third ventriculostomy for hydrocephalus associated with tectal gliomas. Neurosurg Focus. 2005;15;18(6A):E2.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34

    Kulkarni AV, Donnelly R, Shams I. Comparison of Hydrocephalus Outcome Questionnaire scores to neuropsychological test performance in school-aged children. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2011;8(4):396401.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 85 85 85
Full Text Views 41 41 41
PDF Downloads 73 73 73
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0