1992
DOI: 10.1055/s-2008-1052269
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Unique complications of cerebrospinal fluid shunts in children - A Report of Two Cases

Abstract: The authors report on two cases with unusual CSF shunt complications. The first case had a peritoneal catheter which migrated down a patent processus vaginalis into a hydrocoele. The second case had an atrial catheter which perforated the atrial wall and came to lie in the pericardium causing an effusion. Clinicians should be aware of the frequent and occasionally bizarre complications of CSF shunting.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

1996
1996
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 1 publication
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The treatment can be conservative, based on respiratory rehabilitation, or surgical. There is not consensus as to which is the most appropriate [6,7].…”
Section: Journal Of Head Neck and Spine Surgery Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The treatment can be conservative, based on respiratory rehabilitation, or surgical. There is not consensus as to which is the most appropriate [6,7].…”
Section: Journal Of Head Neck and Spine Surgery Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Increased abdominal pressure following shunt insertion may prevent obliteration of the Processus vaginalis and facilitates migration of the VP shunt into the scrotum [2]. Smaller size of peritoneal cavity in infancy compared with older children could be another etiologic factor for VP shunt migration to Processus vaginalis [7].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In such cases the ligation and closing of the peritoneal-vaginal conduit is the treatment of choice to solve the problem [8][9][10]. Extremely rare complications resulting from the VPS already described in the literature consist of intrahepatic cyst [11], gastric perforation, [12] and a single case of prosthesis protrusion through the anal orifice, described by Peter et al [13]. In this letter, we would like to address the calculation of the PPV and negative predictive value (NPV).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%