Abstract
PURPOSE: Neuro-endoscopic lavage (NEL) is an increasingly popular intervention for intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH) and post-haemorrhagic hydrocephalus (PHH), with considerable variation in technique dependent on clinician and clinical circumstances. Whilst efforts to standardise the technique are ongoing, this work describes a tertiary centre experience utilising NEL, highlighting potential caveats to standardisation. METHODS: A retrospective review of electronic case notes for patients undergoing temporising surgical intervention for IVH between 2012 and 2021 at our centre was performed. Data collected included (i) gestational age, (ii) aetiology of hydrocephalus, (iii) age at time of intervention, (iv) intervention performed, (v) need for permanent CSF diversion, (vi) 'surgical burden', i.e. number of procedures following primary intervention, and (vii) wound failure and infection rate. Data was handled in Microsoft Excel and statistical analysis SPSS v27.0 RESULTS: 49 neonates (n = 25 males) were included. Overall mean gestational age was 27 weeks and at intervention 35 + 3 weeks. IVH was the predominant cause of hydrocephalus (93.8%) and primary surgical interventions included insertion of a ventriculosubgaleal shunt (VSGS) in n = 41 (83.6%) patients, NEL in n = 6 (12.2%) patients and insertion of an EVD in n = 2 (4.1%). N = 9 (18.4%) patients underwent NEL at some point during the time interval reviewed; n = 4 (8.2%) received NEL monotherapy and n = 5 (10.2%) also received a VSGS. Rate of conversion to definitive CSF diversion between NEL (n = 8, 88.9%) and VSGS cohorts (n = 37, 92.5%) was not significantly different (p = 0.57), nor between NEL alone (n = 3, 75%) and NEL + VSGS (n = 5, 100%) (p = 0.44). None of the patients that underwent NEL monotherapy had any wound issues or CNS infection as a result of the initial intervention, compared to n = 3 (60%) of those that underwent NEL and implantation of VSGS (p = 0.1). CONCLUSION: Both NEL and VSGS are effective in temporising hydrocephalus in neonates, occasionally offering a definitive solution in and of themselves. The benefit of dual therapy however remains to be seen, with the addition of VSGS potentially increasing the risk of wound failure in an already vulnerable cohort.