DOI: 10.4103/jmas.jmas_431_25 ISSN: 0972-9941

Conventional versus laparoscopic ventriculoperitoneal shunt placement: A retrospective study with prospectively collected data

Anshul Gupta, Ashish Dey, Anurag Jain, Tamajit Chakraborty, Sneyhil Tyagi, Samir Kumar Kalra, Rajesh Acharya, Satnam Singh Chhabra, Shresth Manglik, Anmol Ahuja, Tarun Mittal
Show PDF Cite

Abstract

Introduction:

Ventriculoperitoneal (VP) shunt placement is among the most common neurosurgical procedures. Distal shunt failure remains a significant complication, often necessitating revision surgery. Laparoscopic placement offers direct visualisation of catheter positioning and cerebrospinal fluid flow confirmation. This study compares outcomes of open mini-laparotomy versus laparoscopic distal catheter placement.

Patients and Methods:

A retrospective observational study of 150 patients (75 per group) undergoing VP shunt placement at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi, from May 2017 to April 2020. Group A underwent open mini-laparotomy; Group B underwent laparoscopic distal catheter placement. The primary outcome was distal shunt failure requiring revision surgery. Secondary outcomes included operative duration, post-operative pain (Visual Analogue Scale [VAS]), analgesic requirements, bowel recovery, and hospital stay.

Results:

Groups were comparable in demographics. Mean total operative time was similar (86.7 ± 16.7 vs. 87.7 ± 17.0 min; P = 0.699). Abdominal operative time was significantly shorter in Group B (28.5 ± 5.3 vs. 37.7 ± 7.2 min; P < 0.001). Mean VAS score was significantly lower in Group B (2.45 ± 1.09 vs. 4.19 ± 1.15; P < 0.001). Post-operative nausea/vomiting (10.7% vs. 26.7%; P = 0.012), analgesic requirement on post-operative day (POD) 2 (26.7% vs. 58.7%; P < 0.001), and bowel recovery time (2.61 ± 1.10 vs. 6.04 ± 1.86 h; P < 0.001) all favoured Group B. Shunt revision rate was significantly lower in Group B (4% vs. 17.3%; P = 0.015).

Conclusions:

Laparoscopic distal VP shunt placement is safe, feasible, and associated with significantly lower shunt revision rates and superior perioperative recovery compared to open mini-laparotomy.

More from our Archive