Back

Comparing the efficacy of Ventriculoperitoneal Shunts with Lumboperitoneal Shunts in the treatment of Idiopathic Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abaee, A.; Kelly, O. D.; Thorne, L.

2026-01-08 surgery
10.64898/2026.01.07.26343481
Show abstract

IntroductionVentriculoperitoneal (VP) and Lumboperitoneal (LP) shunts are the most common treatments for Idiopathic Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus (iNPH). Shunt procedure choice is generally based on surgeon on preference rather than evidence. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to address this gap for evidence-based shunt selection in iNPH treatment. MethodsPublications on post-operative outcomes for LP and VP shunts in iNPH were identified in MEDLINE and EMBASE. Papers were selected based on pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria and meta-analysis was conducted for outcome measures after shunt procedure. Results17 papers were included. LP Shunt patients showed greater cognitive improvement with an average increase of 2.00 points (95% CI: 1.08; 2.93, p < 0.0001) on their MMSE score post-operatively compared to VP shunt patients who improved on average by 1.30 points (95% CI: 0.81; 1.79, p < 0.0001). The LP group had considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 66.42%, p = 0.0003) whereas the VP shunt group had minimal heterogeneity (I2 = 0.00%, p = 0.8447) reflecting more uniformity across its included studies. For overall symptomatic improvement measured by the iNPHGS, VP shunts patients demonstrated a larger reduction in overall symptom scores with an average decrease of 2.91 points (95% CI: -3.78; -2.05, p < 0.0001) but with a high heterogeneity (I2 = 79.12%, p = 0.0012) compared to LP shunt patients with an average reduction of 1.91 points (95% CI: -2.31; -1.51, p < 0.0001) with no detected heterogeneity (I2 = 0.00%, p = 0.8454). ConclusionsOur findings demonstrate that LP and VP shunts show differing patterns of improvement across the cognitive domain and the broader iNPH triad, with LP shunting showing greater cognitive improvement and VP shunting showing greater overall symptomatic improvement. These differences represent a signal warranting further investigation, specifically whether symptom profiles should inform shunt selection.

Matching journals

1
Human Brain Mapping
Wiley · based on 53 published papers
Top 0.4%
41× avg
2
PLOS ONE
Public Library of Science (PLoS) · based on 1737 published papers
Top 48%
10.7%
3
BMC Neurology
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 11 published papers
#1
96× avg
4
Brain Communications
Oxford University Press (OUP) · based on 79 published papers
Top 2%
18× avg
5
Journal of Clinical Medicine
MDPI AG · based on 77 published papers
Top 2%
9.1× avg
6
BMJ Open
BMJ · based on 553 published papers
Top 22%
5.0%
7
Systematic Reviews
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 11 published papers
Top 0.1%
58× avg
8
British Journal of Anaesthesia
Elsevier BV · based on 13 published papers
Top 0.7%
22× avg
9
Scientific Reports
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 701 published papers
Top 48%
3.1%
10
Neurobiology of Disease
Elsevier BV · based on 12 published papers
#1
50× avg
11
Frontiers in Medicine
Frontiers Media SA · based on 99 published papers
Top 8%
3.7× avg
12
Journal of Neurotrauma
Mary Ann Liebert Inc · based on 11 published papers
Top 0.8%
20× avg
13
PLOS Medicine
Public Library of Science (PLoS) · based on 95 published papers
Top 8%
3.1× avg
14
Biology Methods and Protocols
Oxford University Press (OUP) · based on 19 published papers
Top 0.6%
14× avg
15
Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry
BMJ · based on 26 published papers
Top 3%
9.7× avg
16
Neurology
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) · based on 38 published papers
Top 5%
5.1× avg
17
Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology
Wiley · based on 22 published papers
Top 3%
9.7× avg
18
Brain and Behavior
Wiley · based on 19 published papers
Top 2%
10× avg
19
Critical Care Explorations
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) · based on 15 published papers
Top 1%
12× avg
20
Brain
Oxford University Press (OUP) · based on 69 published papers
Top 5%
3.5× avg
21
eBioMedicine
Elsevier BV · based on 82 published papers
Top 4%
5.2× avg
22
Journal of the American Heart Association
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) · based on 92 published papers
Top 10%
1.7× avg
23
Trials
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 24 published papers
Top 3%
5.6× avg
24
Heliyon
Elsevier BV · based on 57 published papers
Top 9%
2.4× avg
25
Scientific Data
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 30 published papers
Top 3%
5.6× avg
26
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism
The Endocrine Society · based on 26 published papers
Top 3%
3.4× avg
27
BMJ Paediatrics Open
BMJ · based on 20 published papers
Top 2%
5.5× avg
28
npj Digital Medicine
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 85 published papers
Top 14%
0.7%