Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2006 Jul 19;2006(3):CD005365.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005365.pub2.

Antibiotic prophylaxis for surgical introduction of intracranial ventricular shunts

B Ratilal  1 , J Costa, C Sampaio
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Antibiotic prophylaxis for surgical introduction of intracranial ventricular shunts

B Ratilal et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Systemic antibiotics and antibiotic-impregnated shunt systems are often used to prevent shunt infection.

Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of either prophylactic systemic antibiotics or antibiotic-impregnated shunt systems for preventing infection in patients who underwent surgical introduction of intracranial ventricular shunts.

Search strategy: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS and the meeting proceedings from the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and from the European Association of Neurosurgical Societies, until June 2005.

Selection criteria: We included randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing the use of prophylactic antibiotics (either systemic or antibiotic-impregnated shunt systems) in intracranial ventricular shunt procedures with placebo or no antibiotics.

Data collection and analysis: Two authors appraised quality and extracted data independently.

Main results: We included seventeen trials with overall 2134 participants. We performed two separate meta-analyses: one that evaluated the use of systemic prophylactic antibiotics and another that evaluated the use of antibiotic-impregnated systems. All studies included shunt infection in their primary outcome. We could not analyse all-cause mortality regarding systemic antibiotics due to lack of data. No significant differences were found (odds ratio (OR): 1.47, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.83 to 2.62) for this outcome regarding the use of antibiotic-impregnated catheters compared with standard ones. The use of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis and the use of antibiotic-impregnated catheters were associated with a decrease in shunt infection (OR: 0.52, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.74 and OR: 0.21, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.55 respectively). We found no significant benefit for shunt revision in both meta-analyses that evaluated systemic antibiotics and impregnated-shunt systems. We found no significant differences between the subgroups evaluated: type of shunt (internal/external, ventriculoperitoneal/ventriculoatrial), age and duration of the administration of antibiotics.

Authors' conclusions: We could demonstrate a benefit of systemic prophylactic antibiotics for the first 24 hours postoperatively to prevent shunt infection, regardless of the patient's age and the type of internal shunt used. The benefit of its use after this period remains uncertain. However this data derives from the rate of shunt infection, which is an intermediary outcome. Future trials should evaluate the effectiveness of different regimens of systemic antibiotics rather than placebo, and should include all-cause mortality, shunt revision and adverse events as additional outcomes. Evidence suggests that antibiotic-impregnated catheters reduce the incidence of shunt infection although more well-designed clinical trials testing the effect of antibiotic-impregnated shunts are required to confirm their net benefit.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None known.

Figures

1
1
Funnel plot of trials of systemic antibiotics for shunt infection
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 Antibiotic‐impregnated versus standard catheters, Outcome 1 All‐cause mortality.
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 Antibiotic‐impregnated versus standard catheters, Outcome 2 Shunt infection.
1.3
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1 Antibiotic‐impregnated versus standard catheters, Outcome 3 Shunt revision.
2.1
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2 Systemic antibiotic prophylaxis versus placebo or no antibiotic, Outcome 1 Shunt infection.
2.2
2.2. Analysis
Comparison 2 Systemic antibiotic prophylaxis versus placebo or no antibiotic, Outcome 2 Shunt revision.
2.3
2.3. Analysis
Comparison 2 Systemic antibiotic prophylaxis versus placebo or no antibiotic, Outcome 3 Any adverse events.
2.4
2.4. Analysis
Comparison 2 Systemic antibiotic prophylaxis versus placebo or no antibiotic, Outcome 4 Shunt infection (sensitivity analysis).
2.5
2.5. Analysis
Comparison 2 Systemic antibiotic prophylaxis versus placebo or no antibiotic, Outcome 5 Shunt infection (internal shunts).
3.1
3.1. Analysis
Comparison 3 VA versus VP shunts (subgroup analysis for systemic antibiotics), Outcome 1 Shunt infection.
4.1
4.1. Analysis
Comparison 4 Children versus all ages (subgroup analysis for sytemic antibiotics), Outcome 1 Shunt infection.
5.1
5.1. Analysis
Comparison 5 Periprocedural versus continuous antibiotics (subgroup analysis for systemic antibiotics), Outcome 1 Shunt infection.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

References

References to studies included in this review

Bayston 1975 {published data only}
    1. Bayston R. Antibiotic prophylaxis in shunt surgery. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology Supplement 1975;35:99‐103. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
Blomstedt 1985 {published data only}
    1. Blomstedt GC. Results of trimethoprim‐sulfamethoxazole prophylaxis in ventriculostomy and shunting procedures. A double‐blind randomized trial. Journal of Neurosurgery 1985;62(5):694‐7. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
Blum 1989 {published data only}
    1. Blum J, Schwarz M, Voth D. Antibiotic single‐dose prophylaxis of shunt infections. Neurosurgical Review 1989;12(3):239‐44. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
Bullock 1988 {published data only}
    1. Bullock R, Dellen JR, Ketelbey W, Reinach SG. A double‐blind placebo‐controlled trial of perioperative prophylactic antibiotics for elective neurosurgery. Journal of Neurosurgery 1988;69(5):687‐91. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
Djindjian 1986 {published data only}
    1. Djindjian M, Fevrier MJ, Otterbein G, Soussy JC. Oxacillin prophylaxis in cerebrospinal fluid shunt procedures: results of a randomized open study in 60 hydrocephalic patients. Surgical Neurology 1986;25(2):178‐80. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
Govender 2003 {published data only}
    1. Govender ST, Nathoo N, Dellen JR. Evaluation of an antibiotic‐impregnated shunt system for the treatment of hydrocephalus. Journal of Neurosurgery 2003;99(5):831‐9. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
    1. Nathoo N, Govender ST, Barnett GH, Dellen JR. Evaluation of an antimicrobial impregnated shunt system for the treatment of hydrocephalus. Presented at the American Association of Neurological Surgeons 2004 Annual Meeting. 2004. [19604 (www.aans.org)]
Haines 1982 {published data only}
    1. Haines SJ, Taylor F. Prophylactic methicillin for shunt operations: effects on incidence of shunt malfunction and infection. Child's Brain 1982;9(1):10‐22. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
Odio 1984 {published data only}
    1. Odio C, Mohs E, Sklar FH, Nelson JD, McCracken GH. Adverse reactions to vancomycin used as prophylaxis for CSF shunts procedures. American Journal of Diseases of Children 1984;138(1):17‐9. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
Rieder 1987 {published data only}
    1. Rieder MJ, Frewen TC, Maestro RF, Coyle A, Lovell S. The effect of cephalothin prophylaxis on postoperative ventriculoperitoneal shunt infections. Canadian Medical Association Journal 1987;36(9):935‐8. [MEDLINE: ] - PMC - PubMed
Rocca 1992 {published data only}
    1. Rocca B, Mallet MN, Scemama F, Malca S, Chevalier A, Gouin F. Perioperative remote infections in neurosurgery. Role of antibiotic prophylaxis [Infections à distance du foyer opératoire en neurochirurgie. Rôle de l'antibioprophylaxie]. La Presse Médicale 1992;21(42):2037‐40. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
Schmidt 1985 {published data only}
    1. Schmidt K, Gjerris F, Osgaard O, Hvidberg EF, Kristiansen JE, Dahlerup B, et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis in cerebrospinal fluid shunting: a prospective randomized trial in 152 hydrocephalic patients. Neurosurgery 1985;17(1):1‐5. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
Walters 1992 {published data only}
    1. Walters BC, Goumnerova L, Hoffman HJ, Hendrick EB, Humphreys RP, Levinton C. A randomized controlled trial of perioperative rifampin/trimethoprim in cerebrospinal fluid shunt surgery. Child's Nervous System 1992;8(5):253‐7. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
Wang 1984 {published data only}
    1. Wang EE, Prober CG, Hendrick BE, Hoffman HJ, Humphreys RP. Prophylactic sulfamethoxazole and trimethoprim in ventriculoperitoneal shunt surgery. A double‐blind, randomized, placebo‐controlled trial. JAMA 1984;251(9):1174‐7. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
Yogev 1985 {published data only}
    1. Yogev R. Cerebrospinal fluid shunt infections: a personal view. The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal 1985;4(2):113‐8. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
Young 1987 {published data only}
    1. Young RF, Lawner PM. Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis for prevention of postoperative neurosurgical infections. A randomized clinical trial. Journal of Neurosurgery 1987;66(5):701‐5. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
Zabramski 2003 {published data only}
    1. Zabramski JM, Whiting D, Darouiche RO, Horner TG, Olson J, Robertson C, et al. Efficacy of antimicrobial‐impregnated external ventricular drain catheters: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Journal of Neurosurgery 2003;98(4):725‐30. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
Zentner 1995 {published data only}
    1. Zentner J, Gilsbach J, Felder T. Antibiotic prophylaxis in cerebrospinal fluid shunting: a prospective randomized trial in 129 patients. Neurosurgical Review 1995;18(3):169‐72. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Epstein 1982 {published data only}
    1. Epstein MH, Kumor K, Hughes W, Lietman P. Use of prophylactic antibiotics in pediatric shunting operations ‐ a double‐blind prospective study. Presented at the American Association of Neurological Surgeons Annual Meeting. 1982.
Shapiro 1986 {published data only}
    1. Shapiro M, Wald U, Simchen E, Pomeranz S, Zagzag D, Michowiz SD, et al. Randomized clinical trial of intra‐operative antimicrobial prophylaxis of infection after neurosurgical procedures. Journal of Hospital Infection 1986;8(3):283‐95. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
Siqueira 1987 {published data only}
    1. Siqueira MG, Koury LS, Silva AD, Jabur A, Rezende Filho CP. Intraoperative antibiotic prophylaxis in neurosurgery: a randomized controlled clinical trial [Profilaxia antibiótica transoperatória em neurocirurgia: estudo prospectivo controlado]. Arquivos Brasileiros de Neurocirurgia 1987;6:5‐12.

Additional references

Alleyne 2000
    1. Alleyne CH, Hassan M, Zabramski JM. The efficacy and cost of prophylactic and perioprocedural antibiotics in patients with external ventricular drains. Neurosurgery 2000;47:1124‐9. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
Altman 2002
    1. Altman DG, Deeks JJ. Meta‐analysis, Simpson's paradox, and the number needed to treat. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2002;2:3. [MEDLINE: ] - PMC - PubMed
Bondurant 1995
    1. Bondurant CP, Jimenez DF. Epidemiology of cerebrospinal fluid shunting. Pediatric Neurosurgery 1995;23:254‐9. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
Borges 1982
    1. Borges LF. Cerebrospinal fluid shunts interfere with hosts defenses. Neurosurgery 1982;10:55‐60. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
Claus 2004
    1. Claus BC. Shunt Infection. In: H. Richard Winn editor(s). Youmans Neurological Surgery. 5th Edition. Vol. 3, Philadelphia: Saunders, 2004:3419‐25.
Dickersin 1994
    1. Dickersin K, Scherer R, Lefebvre C. Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. BMJ 1994;309:1286‐91. [MEDLINE: ] - PMC - PubMed
Egger 1997
    1. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta‐analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315:629‐34. [MEDLINE: ] - PMC - PubMed
Fleiss 1993
    1. Fleiss JL Fleiss JL. The statistical basis of meta‐analysis.. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 1993;2(2):121‐45. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
Frazee 1988
    1. Frazee RC, Mucha P Jr, Farnell MB, Ebersold MJ. Meningitis after basilar skull fracture. Does antibiotic prophylaxis help?. Postgraduate Medicine 1988;83(5):267‐74. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
Haines 1994
    1. Haines SJ, Walters BC. Antibiotic prophylaxis for cerebrospinal fluid shunts: a metanalysis. Neurosurgery 1994;34:87‐92. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
Higgins 2005
    1. Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Intervention 4.2.5 [updated in May 2005]. The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2005.
Langley 1993
    1. Langley JM, LeBlanc JC, Drake J, Milner R. Efficacy of antimicrobial prophylaxis in placement of cerebrospinal fluid shunts: meta‐analysis. Clinical infectious Diseases 1993;17:98‐103. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
Moss 1991
    1. Moss AJ, Hamburger S, Moore RM Jr, Jeng LL, Howie LJ. Use of selected medical device implants in the United States, 1988. Advance Data 1991;191(26):1‐24. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
RevMan 4.2 [Computer program]
    1. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program]. Version 4.2 for Windows. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2003.
Schulz 1995
    1. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995;273(5):408‐12. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
Smeeth 1999
    1. Smeeth L, Haines A, Ebrahim S. Numbers needed to treat derived from meta‐analyses‐sometimes informative, usually misleading. BMJ 1999;318(7197):1548‐51. [MEDLINE: ] - PMC - PubMed
Stenager 1986
    1. Stenager E, Gerner‐Smidt P, Kock‐Jensen C. Ventriculostomy‐related infections: an epidemiological study. Acta Neurochirurgica 1986;83(1‐2):20‐3. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed

MeSH terms

Substances