Diagnostic Performance of Whole-Body Ultra-Low-Dose CT for Detection of Mechanical Ventriculoperitoneal Shunt Complications: A Retrospective Analysis

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Little AS,
   2. Zabramski JM,
   3. Peterson M, et al

   . Ventriculoperitoneal shunting after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: analysis of the indications, complications, and outcome with a focus on patients with borderline ventriculomegaly. Neurosurgery 2008;62:618–27; discussion 618–27 doi:10.1227/01.neu.0000317310.62073.b2 pmid:18425009

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   1. Hoh BL,
   2. Kleinhenz DT,
   3. Chi YY, et al

   . Incidence of ventricular shunt placement for hydrocephalus with clipping versus coiling for ruptured and unruptured cerebral aneurysms in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database: 2002 to 2007. World Neurosurg 2011;76:548–54 doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2011.05.054 pmid:22251503

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
3. 3.↵
   1. Brean A,
   2. Eide PK

   . Prevalence of probable idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus in a Norwegian population. Acta Neurol Scand 2008;118:48–53 doi:10.1111/j.1600-0404.2007.00982.x pmid:18205881

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   1. Al-Tamimi YZ,
   2. Sinha P,
   3. Chumas PD

   , et al; British Pediatric Neurosurgery Group Audit Committee. Ventriculoperitoneal shunt 30-day failure rate: a retrospective international cohort study. Neurosurgery 2014;74:29–34 doi:10.1227/NEU.0000000000000196 pmid:24089046

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   1. Farahmand D,
   2. Hilmarsson H,
   3. Hogfeldt M, et al

   . Perioperative risk factors for short term shunt revisions in adult hydrocephalus patients. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2009;80:1248–53 doi:10.1136/jnnp.2007.141416 pmid:19293174

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
6. 6.↵
   1. Park MK,
   2. Kim M,
   3. Park KS, et al

   . A retrospective analysis of ventriculoperitoneal shunt revision cases of a single institute. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2015;57:359–63 doi:10.3340/jkns.2015.57.5.359 pmid:26113963

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   1. Reddy GK,
   2. Bollam P,
   3. Caldito G

   . Long-term outcomes of ventriculoperitoneal shunt surgery in patients with hydrocephalus. World Neurosurg 2014;81:404–10 doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2013.01.096 pmid:23380280

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   1. Barton SE,
   2. Campbell JW,
   3. Piatt JH

   . Quality measures for the management of hydrocephalus: concepts, simulations, and preliminary field-testing. J Neurosurg Pediatr 2013;11:392–97 doi:10.3171/2013.1.PEDS12362 pmid:23373623

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   1. Lee MJ,
   2. Streicher DA,
   3. Howard BM, et al

   . Ventricular shunt radiographs: still relevant in the cross-sectional era? Pictorial review of the radiographic appearance of ventricular shunts and approach to interpreting shunt series radiographs. Neurographics 2016;6:202–12 doi:10.3174/ng.4160160

   CrossRef
10. 10.↵
    1. Kamenova M,
    2. Rychen J,
    3. Guzman R, et al

    . Yield of early postoperative computed tomography after frontal ventriculoperitoneal shunt placement. PLoS One 2018;13:e0198752 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0198752 pmid:29920522

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    1. Desai KR,
    2. Babb JS,
    3. Amodio JB

    . The utility of the plain radiograph “shunt series” in the evaluation of suspected ventriculoperitoneal shunt failure in pediatric patients. Pediatr Radiol 2007;37:452–56 doi:10.1007/s00247-007-0431-3 pmid:17380325

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    1. Lehnert BE,
    2. Rahbar H,
    3. Relyea-Chew A, et al

    . Detection of ventricular shunt malfunction in the ED: relative utility of radiography, CT, and nuclear imaging. Emerg Radiol 2011;18:299–305 doi:10.1007/s10140-011-0955-6 pmid:21523469

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    1. Griffey RT,
    2. Ledbetter S,
    3. Khorasani R

    . Yield and utility of radiographic “shunt series” in the evaluation of ventriculo-peritoneal shunt malfunction in adult emergency patients. Emerg Radiol 2007;13:307–11 doi:10.1007/s10140-006-0557-x pmid:17216178

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    1. Shuaib W,
    2. Johnson JO,
    3. Pande V, et al

    . Ventriculoperitoneal shunt malfunction: cumulative effect of cost, radiation, and turnaround time on the patient and the health care system. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014;202:13–17 doi:10.2214/AJR.13.11176 pmid:24370124

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    1. Pujara S,
    2. Natalwala A,
    3. Robertson I

    . Referrals for suspected ventriculo-peritoneal shunt dysfunction and necessity for further imaging. Br J Neurosurg 2017;31:320–21 doi:10.1080/02688697.2017.1297370 pmid:28281376

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    1. Afat S,
    2. Pjontek R,
    3. Hamou HA, et al

    . Imaging of ventriculoperitoneal shunt complications: comparison of whole-body low-dose computed tomography and radiographic shunt series. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2016;40:991–96 doi:10.1097/RCT.0000000000000468 pmid:27529684

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    1. Othman A,
    2. Hamou HA,
    3. Pjontek R, et al

    . Evaluation of whole body ultralow-dose CT for the assessment of ventriculoperitoneal shunt complications: an experimental ex-vivo study in a swine model. Eur Radiol 2015;25:2199–2204 doi:10.1007/s00330-015-3653-z pmid:25693666

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    1. Pala A,
    2. Awad F,
    3. Braun M, et al

    . Value of whole-body low-dose computed tomography in patients with ventriculoperitoneal shunts: a retrospective study. J Neurosurg 2018;129:1598–1603 doi:10.3171/2017.7.JNS17476 pmid:29303439

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    1. Notohamiprodjo S,
    2. Stahl R,
    3. Braunagel M, et al

    . Diagnostic accuracy of contemporary multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) for the detection of lumbar disc herniation. Eur Radiol 2017;27:3443–51 doi:10.1007/s00330-016-4686-7 pmid:27988890

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    1. Christner JA,
    2. Kofler JM,
    3. McCollough CH

    . Estimating effective dose for CT using dose-length product compared with using organ doses: consequences of adopting International Commission on Radiological Protection publication 103 or dual-energy scanning. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;194:881–89 doi:10.2214/AJR.09.3462 pmid:20308486

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
21. 21.↵
    American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 23. The Measurement, Reporting, and Management of Radiation Dose in CT. American Association of Physicists in Medicine; 2008 doi:10.37206/97

    CrossRef
22. 22.↵
    1. Othman AE,
    2. Afat S,
    3. Hamou HA, et al

    . High-pitch low-dose whole-body computed tomography for the assessment of ventriculoperitoneal shunts in a pediatric patient model: an experimental ex vivo study in rabbits. Invest Radiol 2015;50:858–62 doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000195 pmid:26284435

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    1. Abdi AJ,
    2. Mussmann B,
    3. Mackenzie A, et al

    . Visual evaluation of image quality of a low dose 2D/3D slot scanner imaging system compared to two conventional digital radiography x-ray imaging systems. Diagnostics (Basel) 2021;11:1932 doi:10.3390/diagnostics11101932 pmid:34679630

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    1. Monuszko K,
    2. Malinzak M,
    3. Yang LZ, et al

    . Image quality of EOS low-dose radiography in comparison with conventional radiography for assessment of ventriculoperitoneal shunt integrity. J Neurosurg Pediatr 2021;27:375–81 doi:10.3171/2020.8.PEDS20428 pmid:33418531

    CrossRefPubMed