Introduction: There is extensive debate on the role of fixed pressure shunts in the adult population. Most studies available assessing fixed pressure valves are dated and do not consider the potential for changes in technique and management of shunts. We sought to examine the natural history of fixed pressure shunts in a modern cohort.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of all patients undergoing shunt placement by the senior author (DW) from January 2000 to March 2017. Patient demographic and outcome data was acquired. The etiology of shunt placement and shunt failure was assessed for each patient. The financial data from April 2013 to November 2016 was available and used to compare costs between the cohort in question and patients receiving programmable valves from other providers.

Results: One hundred twenty-six patients underwent initial shunt placement by the senior author during this time period. Thirty-three (26.2%) patients required at least one shunt revision during follow-up. The most common cause of first time revision was mechanical shunt malfunction (13, 39.4%), followed by infection (7, 21.2%), and shunt migration (6, 18.2%). Three patients (9.1%) required revision due to misplaced catheters. Underdrainage or overdrainage of shunts each resulted in revisions for 2 (6.1%) patients. The mean follow-up length was 28.1 ± 6.1 months. Programmable valve shunts were found to be more expensive than fixed valve shunts. ($3307 vs. $772, respectively).

Conclusions: Fixed pressure shunt revision occurred most commonly in patients developing hydrocephalus as a result of hemorrhage or NPH, with mechanical shunt malfunction being the primary reason for failure. The overall failure rate between these two groups was proportionally equivalent. Either overdrainage or underdrainage were found to be rare indications for revision. The costs associated with programmable shunt placement were greater than in fixed pressure valves.

Patient Care: 1) Establishes a low rate of over and underdrainage for fixed pressure valves in the modern era 2) Provides better ability to counsel patients on the risks and benefits of fixed pressure valves by indication for shunting

Learning Objectives: Understand the historical concerns regarding fixed pressure shunts Examine the data in a modern cohort regarding complication rates for fixed pressure shunts Consider the financial implications between fixed and variable pressure valve shunts

References: Uncategorized References 1. Borgbjerg BM, Gjerris F, Albeck MJ, Hauerberg J, Borgesen SE: Frequency and causes of shunt revisions in different cerebrospinal fluid shunt types. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 136:189-194, 1995 2. Di Rocco C, Marchese E, Velardi F: A survey of the first complication of newly implanted CSF shunt devices for the treatment of nontumoral hydrocephalus. Cooperative survey of the 1991-1992 Education Committee of the ISPN. Childs Nerv Syst 10:321-327, 1994 3. Hanlo PW, Cinalli G, Vandertop WP, Faber JA, Bogeskov L, Borgesen SE, et al: Treatment of hydrocephalus determined by the European Orbis Sigma Valve II survey: a multicenter prospective 5-year shunt survival study in children and adults in whom a flow-regulating shunt was used. J Neurosurg 99:52-57, 2003 4. Hatlen TJ, Shurtleff DB, Loeser JD, Ojemann JG, Avellino AM, Ellenbogen RG: Nonprogrammable and programmable cerebrospinal fluid shunt valves: a 5-year study. J Neurosurg Pediatr 9:462-467, 2012 5. Hoshide R, Meltzer H, Dalle-Ore C, Gonda D, Guillaume D, Chen CC: Impact of ventricular-peritoneal shunt valve design on clinical outcome of pediatric patients with hydrocephalus: Lessons learned from randomized controlled trials. Surg Neurol Int 8:49, 2017 6. Kaestner S, Poetschke M, Roth C, Deinsberger W: Different origins of hydrocephalus lead to different shunt revision rates. Neurol Neurochir Pol 51:72-76, 2017 7. Kestle JR, Walker ML, Strata I: A multicenter prospective cohort study of the Strata valve for the management of hydrocephalus in pediatric patients. J Neurosurg 102:141-145, 2005 8. Khan F, Rehman A, Shamim MS, Bari ME: Factors affecting ventriculoperitoneal shunt survival in adult patients. Surg Neurol Int 6:25, 2015 9. Korinek AM, Fulla-Oller L, Boch AL, Golmard JL, Hadiji B, Puybasset L: Morbidity of ventricular cerebrospinal fluid shunt surgery in adults: an 8-year study. Neurosurgery 68:985-994; discussion 994-985, 2011 10. Lam SK, Srinivasan VM, Luerssen TG, Pan IW: Cerebrospinal fluid shunt placement in the pediatric population: a model of hospitalization cost. Neurosurg Focus 37:E5, 2014 11. Lee L, King NK, Kumar D, Ng YP, Rao J, Ng H, et al: Use of programmable versus nonprogrammable shunts in the management of hydrocephalus secondary to aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: a retrospective study with cost-benefit analysis. J Neurosurg 121:899-903, 2014 12. Lifshutz JI, Johnson WD: History of hydrocephalus and its treatments. Neurosurg Focus 11:E1, 2001 13. McGirt MJ, Woodworth G, Coon AL, Thomas G, Williams MA, Rigamonti D: Diagnosis, treatment, and analysis of long-term outcomes in idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus. Neurosurgery 57:699-705; discussion 699-705, 2005 14. Merkler AE, Ch'ang J, Parker WE, Murthy SB, Kamel H: The Rate of Complications after Ventriculoperitoneal Shunt Surgery. World Neurosurg 98:654-658, 2017 15. Mpakopoulou M, Brotis AG, Gatos H, Paterakis K, Fountas KN: Ten years of clinical experience in the use of fixed-pressure versus programmable valves: a retrospective study of 159 patients. Acta Neurochir Suppl 113:25-28, 2012 16. Patwardhan RV, Nanda A: Implanted ventricular shunts in the United States: the billion-dollar-a-year cost of hydrocephalus treatment. Neurosurgery 56:139-144; discussion 144-135, 2005 17. Pollack IF, Albright AL, Adelson PD: A randomized, controlled study of a programmable shunt valve versus a conventional valve for patients with hydrocephalus. Hakim-Medos Investigator Group. Neurosurgery 45:1399-1408; discussion 1408-1311, 1999 18. Reddy GK, Bollam P, Caldito G: Long-term outcomes of ventriculoperitoneal shunt surgery in patients with hydrocephalus. World Neurosurg 81:404-410, 2014 19. Reddy GK, Bollam P, Caldito G: Ventriculoperitoneal shunt surgery and the risk of shunt infection in patients with hydrocephalus: long-term single institution experience. World Neurosurg 78:155-163, 2012 20. Reddy GK, Bollam P, Shi R, Guthikonda B, Nanda A: Management of adult hydrocephalus with ventriculoperitoneal shunts: long-term single-institution experience. Neurosurgery 69:774-780; discussion 780-771, 2011 21. Ringel F, Schramm J, Meyer B: Comparison of programmable shunt valves vs standard valves for communicating hydrocephalus of adults: a retrospective analysis of 407 patients. Surg Neurol 63:36-41; discussion 41, 2005 22. Simon TD, Riva-Cambrin J, Srivastava R, Bratton SL, Dean JM, Kestle JR, et al: Hospital care for children with hydrocephalus in the United States: utilization, charges, comorbidities, and deaths. J Neurosurg Pediatr 1:131-137, 2008 23. Stein SC, Guo W: Have we made progress in preventing shunt failure? A critical analysis. J Neurosurg Pediatr 1:40-47, 2008 24. Stone JJ, Walker CT, Jacobson M, Phillips V, Silberstein HJ: Revision rate of pediatric ventriculoperitoneal shunts after 15 years. J Neurosurg Pediatr 11:15-19, 2013 25. Weisenberg SH, TerMaath SC, Seaver CE, Killeffer JA: Ventricular catheter development: past, present, and future. J Neurosurg 125:1504-1512, 2016 26. Wu Y, Green NL, Wrensch MR, Zhao S, Gupta N: Ventriculoperitoneal shunt complications in California: 1990 to 2000. Neurosurgery 61:557-562; discussion 562-553, 2007 27. Xu H, Wang ZX, Liu F, Tan GW, Zhu HW, Chen DH: Programmable shunt valves for the treatment of hydrocephalus: a systematic review. Eur J Paediatr Neurol 17:454-461, 2013