Global Perspectives on the Treatment of Hydrocephalus

  • Johannes Marthinus Nicolaas EnslinEmail author
  • Anthony Graham Fieggen


Hydrocephalus is one of the most common neurosurgical procedures that is performed daily all around the world. The burden that hydrocephalus has on manpower, finances and resources in general is significant. It is interesting to note that even though hydrocephalus does not have geographical predilections, the aetiology differs between regions and economic status of countries. Africa, South America and South-East Asia have by far a larger incidence of hydrocephalus and the cases due to infections are much higher than in developed countries. Endoscopic management and modification of shunts have played a major role in the management of hydrocephalus all around the world and new innovative uses of these tools have also come from the developing nations and adopted by developed countries. The global hydrocephalus community needs greater support and we, as neurosurgeons, have to take the forefront as advocates for patients’ rights to excellent health care.


Hydrocephalus Global perspective Burden of disease Regional differences Shunt placement Endoscopic treatment 


  1. 1.
    Lifshutz JI, Johnson WD. History of hydrocephalus and its treatments. Neurosurg Focus. 2001;11(2):1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Enchev Y, Oi S. Historical trends of neuroendoscopic surgical techniques in the treatment of hydrocephalus. Neurosurg Rev. 2008;31(3):249–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kestle J, et al. Long-term follow-up data from the Shunt Design Trial. Pediatr Neurosurg. 2000;33(5):230–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Drake J, Kestle J, Tuli S. CSF shunts 50 years on–past, present and future. Childs Nerv Syst. 2000;16(10–11):800–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Drake JM, et al. Randomized trial of cerebrospinal fluid shunt valve design in pediatric hydrocephalus. Neurosurgery. 1998;43(2):294–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dewan MC, et al. Global hydrocephalus epidemiology and incidence: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neurosurg. 2018;27:1–15.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chi JH, Fullerton HJ, Gupta N. Time trends and demographics of deaths from congenital hydrocephalus in children in the United States: National Center for Health Statistics data, 1979 to 1998. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2005;103(2):113–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tamakoshi A, et al. A nationwide survey of congenital hydrocephalus in Japan—estimated prevalence and incidence. Eur J Public Health. 1991;1(2):86–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Persson EK, Hagberg G, Uvebrant P. Hydrocephalus prevalence and outcome in a population-based cohort of children born in 1989–1998. Acta Paediatr. 2005;94(6):726–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dodge PR, Swartz MN. Bacterial meningitis—a review of selected aspects: special neurologic problems, postmeningitic complications and clinicopathological correlations. N Engl J Med. 1965;272(18):954–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guyot L, Michael D. Post-traumatic hydrocephalus. Neurol Res. 2000;22(1):25–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Riva-Cambrin J, et al. Predicting postresection hydrocephalus in pediatric patients with posterior fossa tumors. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2009;3(5):378–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chen S, et al. Hydrocephalus after subarachnoid hemorrhage: pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment. Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:1–8.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Warf BC. Pediatric hydrocephalus in East Africa: prevalence, causes, treatments, and strategies for the future. World Neurosurg. 2010;73(4):296–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jukonya L. Hydrocephalus management in Zimbabwe; 2018.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Adeloye A. The Rahima Dawood Memorial Guest Lecture–December 2006–Malawi. Pattern, practice and problems of neurological surgery in east and central Africa. East Cent Afr J Surg. 2006;12(2):4–16.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Attebery JE, et al. Initial audit of a basic and emergency neurosurgical training program in rural Tanzania. World Neurosurg. 2010;73(4):290–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mangi DA. An exploration of social predicaments facing children with hydrocephalus: the case study of Muhimbili Orthopaedic Institute. The Open University of Tanzania; 2016.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cotton M. The acute abdomen and HIV. Trop Dr. 2006;36(4):198–200.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sibanda SE. Infection after Harare valve VP shunt operations: a review of 92 cases. Cent Afr J Med. 1991;37(12):397–403.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Warf BC. Comparison of 1-year outcomes for the Chhabra and Codman-Hakim Micro Precision shunt systems in Uganda: a prospective study in 195 children. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2005;102(4):358–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Warf BC, et al. Costs and benefits of neurosurgical intervention for infant hydrocephalus in sub-Saharan Africa. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2011;8(5):509–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Li L, et al. Association of bacteria with hydrocephalus in Ugandan infants. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2011;7(1):73–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Laeke T, et al. Pediatric hydrocephalus in Ethiopia: treatment failures and infections: a hospital-based, retrospective study. World Neurosurg. 2017;100:30–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Warf BC. Hydrocephalus in Uganda: the predominance of infectious origin and primary management with endoscopic third ventriculostomy. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2005;102(1):1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kulkarni AV, et al. Surgery for hydrocephalus in sub-Saharan Africa versus developed nations: a risk-adjusted comparison of outcome. Childs Nerv Syst. 2010;26(12):1711–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Agrawal J, et al. Kathmandu Univ Med J. 2012;9(2):1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Spennato P, et al. Neuroendoscopic treatment of multiloculated hydrocephalus in children. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2007;106(1):29–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Warf BC. Hydrocephalus associated with neural tube defects: characteristics, management, and outcome in sub-Saharan Africa. Childs Nerv Syst. 2011;27(10):1589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kulkarni AV, et al. Endoscopic third ventriculostomy in the treatment of childhood hydrocephalus. J Pediatr. 2009;155(2):254–259.e1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kulkarni AV, Riva-Cambrin J, Browd SR. Use of the ETV Success Score to explain the variation in reported endoscopic third ventriculostomy success rates among published case series of childhood hydrocephalus. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2011;7(2):143–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Shitsama S, et al. Choroid plexus coagulation in infants with extreme hydrocephalus or hydranencephaly. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2014;14(1):55–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Chamiraju P, et al. Endoscopic third ventriculostomy and choroid plexus cauterization in posthemorrhagic hydrocephalus of prematurity. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2014;13(4):433–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Thwaites GE, van Toorn R, Schoeman J. Tuberculous meningitis: more questions, still too few answers. Lancet Neurol. 2013;12(10):999–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rajshekhar V. Management of hydrocephalus in patients with tuberculous meningitis. Neurol India. 2009;57(4):368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Palur R, et al. Shunt surgery for hydrocephalus in tuberculous meningitis: a long-term follow-up study. J Neurosurg. 1991;74(1):64–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Figaji A, Fieggen A, Peter J. Endoscopic third ventriculostomy in tuberculous meningitis. Childs Nerv Syst. 2003;19(4):217–25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Figaji A, Fieggen A, Peter J. Endoscopy for tuberculous hydrocephalus. Childs Nerv Syst. 2007;23(1):79–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Figaji AA, Fieggen AG. The neurosurgical and acute care management of tuberculous meningitis: evidence and current practice. Tuberculosis. 2010;90(6):393–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Warf BC, Kulkarni AV. Intraoperative assessment of cerebral aqueduct patency and cisternal scarring: impact on success of endoscopic third ventriculostomy in 403 African children. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2010;5(2):204–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kim S, et al. The use of frameless navigation during endoscopic interventions in children with multilocular hydrocephalus. Zh Vopr Neirokhir Im N N Burdenko. 2015;79(4):61–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Whitehead WE, et al. Accurate placement of cerebrospinal fluid shunt ventricular catheters with real-time ultrasound guidance in older children without patent fontanelles. J Neurosurg. 2007;107(5 Suppl):406–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Padayachy LC, et al. Change in optic nerve sheath diameter as a radiological marker of outcome from endoscopic third ventriculostomy in children. Childs Nerv Syst. 2015;31(5):721–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Warf BC, Campbell JW. Combined endoscopic third ventriculostomy and choroid plexus cauterization as primary treatment of hydrocephalus for infants with myelomeningocele: long-term results of a prospective intent-to-treat study in 115 East African infants. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2008;2(5):310–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Stagno V, et al. Management of hydrocephalus around the world. World Neurosurg. 2013;79(2):S23.e17–20.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Oikonomou J, et al. New valves—new dangers? 22 valves (38 probes) designed in the ‘nineties in ultralong-term tests (365 days). Eur J Pediatr Surg. 1999;9(S1):23–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kamalo P. Point of view: exit ventriculoperitoneal shunt; enter endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV): contemporary views on hydrocephalus and their implications on management. Malawi Med J. 2013;25(3):78–82.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ringel F, Schramm J, Meyer B. Comparison of programmable shunt valves vs standard valves for communicating hydrocephalus of adults: a retrospective analysis of 407 patients. Surg Neurol. 2005;63(1):36–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Pollack IF, Albright AL, Adelson PD. A randomized, controlled study of a programmable shunt valve versus a conventional valve for patients with hydrocephalus. Neurosurgery. 1999;45(6):1399–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ravindra VM, et al. The need for cost-effective neurosurgical innovation—a global surgery initiative. World Neurosurg. 2015;84(5):1458–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kalangu KK. Pediatric neurosurgery in Africa–present and future. Childs Nerv Syst. 2000;16(10–11):770–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Ibrahim GM, Bernstein M. Models of neurosurgery international aid and their potential ethical pitfalls. Virtual Mentor. 2015;17(1):49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Oka K. Introduction of the videoscope in neurosurgery. Oper Neurosurg. 2008;62(suppl_5):ONS337–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Joseph RA, Killian MR, Brady EE. Nursing care of infants with a ventriculoperitoneal shunt. Adv Neonatal Care. 2017;17(6):430–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Clewell WH, et al. A surgical approach to the treatment of fetal hydrocephalus. N Engl J Med. 1982;306(22):1320–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Adzick NS, et al. A randomized trial of prenatal versus postnatal repair of myelomeningocele. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(11):993–1004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Sader E, Yee P, Hodaie M. Barriers to neurosurgical training in sub-Saharan Africa: the need for a phased approach to global surgery efforts to improve neurosurgical care. World Neurosurg. 2017;98:397–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Kanyi JK, et al. Burr-hole craniostomy for chronic subdural hematomas by General Surgeons in Rural Kenya. World J Surg. 2018;42(1):40–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Dechambenoit G. Action Africa! World Neurosurg. 2010;73(4):251–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Warf BC. Educate one to save a few. Educate a few to save many. World Neurosurg. 2013;79(2):S15.e15–8.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Eriksen AA, et al. Implementing routine head circumference measurements in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: means and challenges. World Neurosurg. 2016;91:592–596.e2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Andersson S. Visual function and ocular morphology in children with surgically treated hydrocephalus. Göteborg: Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology. Department of Clinical Neuroscience and Rehabilitation; 2011.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Thomale U, et al. Smartphone-assisted guide for the placement of ventricular catheters. Childs Nerv Syst. 2013;29(1):131–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Warf B, et al. Neurocognitive outcome and ventricular volume in children with myelomeningocele treated for hydrocephalus in Uganda. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2009;4(6):564–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Jacobs R, Northam E, Anderson V. Cognitive outcome in children with myelomeningocele and perinatal hydrocephalus: A longitudinal perspective. J Dev Phys Disabil. 2001;13(4):389–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Erickson K, Baron IS, Fantie BD. Neuropsychological functioning in early hydrocephalus: review from a developmental perspective. Child Neuropsychol. 2001;7(4):199–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Baron IS, Goldberger E. Neuropsychological disturbances of hydrocephalic children with implications for special education and rehabilitation. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 1993;3(4):389–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Gathura E, et al. Outcomes of ventriculoperitoneal shunt insertion in sub-Saharan Africa. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2010;6(4):329–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Constantini S, Sgouros S, Kulkarni A. Neuroendoscopy in the youngest age group. World Neurosurg. 2013;79(2):S23.e1–S23.e11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Johannes Marthinus Nicolaas Enslin
    • 1
    Email author
  • Anthony Graham Fieggen
    • 2
  1. 1.Red Cross Children’s Hospital, Department of NeurosurgeryCape TownSouth Africa
  2. 2.Division of NeurosurgeryUniversity of Cape Town, Department of SurgeryCape TownSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations