Advertisement

Introduction of a self-holding retractor for optimized abdominal visualization in ventriculoperitoneal shunt surgery: first experiences at a single center

  • Philipp KraussEmail author
  • Markus Florian Oertel
  • Lennart Henning Stieglitz
Technical Note - Neurosurgical technique evaluation
  • 18 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Neurosurgical technique evaluation

Abstract

Objective

Ventriculoperitoneal shunt implantation is a common procedure in general neurosurgery. The patient population is often fragile, ranging from elderly to pediatric patients, and avoidance of perioperative complication is of utmost importance. Abdominal catheter dislocation has been found to be a common cause for early shunt dysfunction and needs to be avoided by optimal visualization of the abdominal catheter insertion zone. Here, we introduce a self-holding wound retractor system Alexis® and demonstrate its use for abdominal shunt surgery in a series of patients.

Methods

We explain the use of the Alexis® self-holding wound retractor during open ventriculoperitoneal shunt surgery in a series of 16 patients operated at our institution.

Results

The self-holding retractor consists of two polymer rings connected by a polymer membrane. The deep ring is easily placed on the internal fascia of the straight muscle and circular retraction is achieved by twisting the upper ring. Free hand working can then be performed by a single surgeon with good abdominal exposure. No case of abdominal dislocation or infection occurred in our series, although no properly powered statistical analysis can be performed regarding the sample size.

Conclusion

We demonstrate the Alexis® Wound Retractor, which is an easy tool for optimal visualization of the abdominal catheter insertion zone. We believe it can facilitate surgical practice of shunt surgery, especially in obese patients.

Keywords

Hydrocephalus Ventriculoperitoneal shunt Wound retractor Surgical technique 

Abbreviations

ASA score

American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification system

BMI

Body mass index

CDG

Clavien–Dindo classification grade

CHF

Swiss franc

CSF

Cerebrospinal fluid

f

Female

H. comm.

Communicating hydrocephalus

ICH

Intracerebral hemorrhage

iNPH

Idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus

kg

Kilogram

KPS

Karnofsky performance status scale

m

Male

m2

Square meter

min

Minute

mRS

Modified ranking scale

NPH

Normal pressure hydrocephalus

OP

Operation

SAH

Subarachnoid hemorrhage

TBI

Traumatic brain injury

VP

Ventriculoperitoneal

y

Years

Notes

Author contributions

All authors confirm that the manuscript and the order of listed authors have been read and approved by all the named authors. L.H.S., M.F.O., and P.K. documented and analyzed the patient data, wrote the manuscript, and performed surgeries.

Compliance with ethical standards

All data and images mentioned in this manuscript were acquired from our institutions’ neurosurgical outcome quality and safety registry, based on local ethics committee approval (Kantonale Ethikkommission KEK-ZH 2012e0244). All patients signed an informed consent for the described procedures.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Bergsneider M, Black PM, Klinge P, Marmarou A, Relkin N (2005) Surgical management of idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus. Neurosurgery 57:S29–S39 discussion ii–vCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cheng KP, Roslani AC, Sehha N, Kueh JH, Law CW, Chong HY, Arumugam K (2012) ALEXIS O-Ring wound retractor vs conventional wound protection for the prevention of surgical site infections in colorectal resections(1). Color Dis 14:e346–e351.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2012.02943.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Edwards JP, Ho AL, Tee MC, Dixon E, Ball CG (2012) Wound protectors reduce surgical site infection: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ann Surg 256:53–59.  https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182570372 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Merkler AE, Ch’ang J, Parker WE, Murthy SB, Kamel H (2017) The rate of complications after ventriculoperitoneal shunt surgery. World Neurosurg 98:654–658.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2016.10.136 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mubeen S, Mubeen S, Falconer D (2014) Use of the Alexis ring retractor in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 52:470–472.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2014.03.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Naftel RP, Argo JL, Shannon CN, Taylor TH, Tubbs RS, Clements RH, Harrigan MR (2011) Laparoscopic versus open insertion of the peritoneal catheter in ventriculoperitoneal shunt placement: review of 810 consecutive cases. J Neurosurg 115:151–158.  https://doi.org/10.3171/2011.1.JNS101492 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nagasaka T, Inao S, Ikeda H, Tsugeno M, Okamoto T (2010) Subcutaneous migration of distal ventriculoperitoneal shunt catheter caused by abdominal fat pad shift--three case reports. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 50:80–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nigim F, Critchlow JF, Schneider BE, Chen C, Kasper EM (2014) Shunting for hydrocephalus: analysis of techniques and failure patterns. J Surg Res 191:140–147.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2014.03.075 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nigim F, Thomas AJ, Papavassiliou E, Schneider BE, Critchlow JF, Chen CC, Siracuse JJ, Zinn PO, Kasper EM (2014) Ventriculoperitoneal shunting: laparoscopically assisted versus conventional open surgical approaches. Asian J Neurosurg 9:72–81.  https://doi.org/10.4103/1793-5482.136717 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schenker P, Stieglitz LH, Sick B, Stienen MN, Regli L, Sarnthein J (2018) Patients with a normal pressure hydrocephalus shunt have fewer complications than do patients with other shunts. World Neurosurg 110:e249–e257.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2017.10.151 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schucht P, Banz V, Trochsler M, Iff S, Krahenbuhl AK, Reinert M, Beck J, Raabe A, Candinas D, Kuhlen D, Mariani L (2015) Laparoscopically assisted ventriculoperitoneal shunt placement: a prospective randomized controlled trial. J Neurosurg 122:1058–1067.  https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.9.JNS132791 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Spirig JM, Frank MN, Regli L, Stieglitz LH (2017) Shunt age-related complications in adult patients with suspected shunt dysfunction. A recommended diagnostic workup. Acta Neurochir 159:1421–1428.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-017-3237-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Theodoridis TD, Chatzigeorgiou KN, Zepiridis L, Papanicolaou A, Vavilis D, Tzevelekis F, Tarlatzis BC (2011) A prospective randomized study for evaluation of wound retractors in the prevention of incision site infections after cesarean section. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 38:57–59Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tsunezuka Y, Oda M, Moriyama H (2006) Wound retraction system for lung resection by video-assisted mini-thoracotomy. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 29:110–111.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcts.2005.10.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wu Y, Green NL, Wrensch MR, Zhao S, Gupta N (2007) Ventriculoperitoneal shunt complications in California: 1990 to 2000. Neurosurgery 61:557–562; discussion 562–553.  https://doi.org/10.1227/01.NEU.0000290903.07943.AF CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of NeurosurgeryUniversity Hospital of ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations