An Official publication of The Asian Congress of Neurological Surgeons (AsianCNS)

Search Article
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Advertise Subscribe Contacts Login  Facebook Tweeter
  Users Online: 323 Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 11  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 114-117

Long-tunneled versus short-tunneled external ventricular drainage: Prospective experience from a developing country


1 Department of Pediatric Neurosurgery, Alder Hey Children's NHS Trust, Liverpool, UK
2 Department of Surgery, Section of Neurosurgery, Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan

Correspondence Address:
Muhammad Zubair Tahir
Department of Pediatric Neurosurgery, Alder Hey Children's NHS Trust, Liverpool
UK
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/1793-5482.145052

Rights and Permissions

Background: External ventricular drains (EVD) are commonly utilized for temporary diversion of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). Many neurosurgeons prefer long-tunneled EVDs in their routine practice. However, it is still unclear whether this extended tunneling helps in reducing CSF infection. Keeping this in mind, we decided to compare infection rates in long-tunneled versus short-tunneled EVDs in the setting of a developing country. Materials and Methods: A prospective study of 60 patients was conducted. Consenting patients who underwent short-tunneled (Group A) or long-tunneled (Group B) EVDs between January 2008 and June 2009 were followed during the course of their inpatient care. All operational protocol was standardized during the trial. Serial samples of CSF were analyzed to detect infection. Results: Mean age of patients was 33.6 years with 32 males (53.3%). Mean duration of long-tunneled EVD was 13.4 ± 7.2 days, whereas that of short-tunneled EVD was 5.3 ± 2.7 days (P < 0.001). Three patients with long-tunneled EVD (10.0%), whereas one patient with short-tunneled EVD (3.3%) developed drain-related infections; however, this was non-significant (P = 0.301). However, patients with short-tunneled EVD got infected earlier on day 3when compared with the long-tunneled EVDs, which got infected after a mean duration of 7.3 days. The overall risk of infection for long-tunneled EVDs was 7.46 per 1,000 ventricular drainage days which was comparable to the risk of 6.33 per 1,000 ventricular drainage days seen for short-tunneled EVDs. Conclusion: Long-tunneled EVDs appear to only delay potential infections without having any effect on the actual risk of infection. Long-tunneled EVD in a resource-limited setting is technically challenging and may not yield additional benefits to the patient. However, larger and prospective studies are needed to establish the rate of infections and other complications.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1802    
    Printed36    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded263    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 7    

Recommend this journal