A review of the current treatment methods for posthaemorrhagic hydrocephalus of infants

Posthaemorrhagic hydrocephalus (PHH) is a major problem for premature infants, generally requiring lifelong care. It results from small blood clots inducing scarring within CSF channels impeding CSF circulation. Transforming growth factor – beta is released into CSF and cytokines stimulate deposition of extracellular matrix proteins which potentially obstruct CSF pathways. Prolonged raised pressures and free radical damage incur poor neurodevelopmental outcomes. The most common treatment involves permanent ventricular shunting with all its risks and consequences

Consensus statement from the international consensus meeting on post-traumatic cranioplasty

Abstract: Background: Due to the lack of high-quality evidence which has hindered the development of evidence-based guidelines, there is a need to provide general guidance on cranioplasty (CP) following traumatic brain injury (TBI), as well as identify areas of ongoing uncertainty via a consensus-based approach. Methods: The international consensus meeting on post-traumatic CP was held during the International Conference on Recent Advances in Neurotraumatology (ICRAN), in Naples, Italy, in June 2018. This meeting was endorsed by the Neurotrauma Committee of the World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies (WFNS), the NIHR Global Health Research Group on Neurotrauma, and several other neurotrauma organizations. Discussions and voting were organized around 5 pre-specified themes: (1) indications and technique, (2) materials, (3) timing, (4) hydrocephalus, and (5) paediatric CP. Results: The participants discussed published evidence on each topic and proposed consensus statements, which were subject to ratification using anonymous real-time voting. Statements required an agreement threshold of more than 70% for inclusion in the final recommendations. Conclusions: This document is the first set of practical consensus-based clinical recommendations on post-traumatic CP, focusing on timing, materials, complications, and surgical procedures. Future research directions are also presented

Starting point for benchmarking outcomes and reporting of pituitary adenoma surgery within the European Reference Network on Rare Endocrine Conditions (Endo-ERN): results from a meta-analysis and survey study

Objective: The European Reference Network on Rare Endocrine Conditions (Endo-ERN) aims to organize high-quality healthcare throughout Europe, inc luding care for pituitary adenoma patients. As surgery is the mainstay of treatment, we aimed to describe the current surgical practice and published surgical outcomes of pi tuitary adenoma within Endo-ERN. Design and Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting surgical outcomes of pituitary adenoma patients within Endo-ERN MTG6 pituitary reference centers between 2010 and 2019. A survey was completed by refere nce centers on their current surgical practice. Results: A total of 18 out of 43 (42%) reference centers located in 7 of the 20 (35%) MTG6- represented countries published 48 articles. Remission rates we re 50% (95% CI: 42–59) for patients with acromegaly, 68% (95% CI: 60–75) for Cushing’s disease, and 53% (95% CI: 39–66%) for prolactinoma. Gross total resection was achieved in 49% (95% CI: 37–61%) of patients and visual improvement in 78% (95% CI: 68–87). Mort ality, hemorrhage, and carotid injury occurred in less than 1% of patients. New-onset hypopituitarism occurred in 16% (95% CI: 11–23), transient diabetes insipidus in 12% (95 % CI: 6–21), permanent diabetes insipidus in 4% (95% CI: 3–6), syndrome of inappropria te secretion of antidiuretic hormone (SIADH) in 9% (95% CI: 5–14), severe epist axis in 2% (95% CI: 0–4), and cerebrospinal fluid leak in 4% (95% CI: 2–6). Thirty-five (81 %) centers completed the survey: 54% were operated endoscopically and 57% were together with an ENT surgeon. Conclusion: The results of this study could be used as a first benchmark for the outcomes of pituitary adenoma surgery within Endo-ERN. However, the hete rogeneity between studies in the reporting of outcomes hampers comparability and warrants outcome collection through registries