临床小儿外科杂志  2026, Vol. 25 Issue (2): 124-129  DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn101785-20251030-00031

引用本文  

张鲁毅, 张刚, 张宇航, 等. 持续脑室外引流治疗新生儿重度脑室内出血的疗效与长期神经功能评估[J]. 临床小儿外科杂志, 2026, 25(2): 124-129.   DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn101785-20251030-00031
Zhang LY, Zhang G, Zhang YH, et al. A case-control study of continuous external ventricular drainage for severe intraventricular hemorrhage in neonates and long-term neurofunctional outcomes[J]. J Clin Ped Sur, 2026, 25(2): 124-129.   DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn101785-20251030-00031

通信作者

史航宇,Email: hangyushi_2023@163.com

文章历史

收稿日期:2025-10-30
持续脑室外引流治疗新生儿重度脑室内出血的疗效与长期神经功能评估
张鲁毅 , 张刚 , 张宇航 , 史航宇     
西安市儿童医院神经外科,西安 710003
摘要目的 探讨持续脑室外引流术治疗新生儿重度脑室内出血的临床疗效及长期神经功能。方法 本研究采用回顾性队列研究,以2020年1月至2025年1月西安市儿童医院神经外科收治的49例新生儿重度脑室内出血病例作为研究对象。根据治疗方案的不同,将患儿分为手术组(n=32,接受脑室储液囊埋置或皮下移行脑室外引流术)和非手术组(n=17,接受腰椎穿刺术联合药物治疗)。于入院时以及术后第7天、第14天、第30天、3个月测量并比较两组患儿脑室宽度与颅骨宽度,计算Evans指数,评价持续脑室外引流术对控制新生儿脑室内出血后脑积水进展的效果,以及对于降低后续脑室-腹腔分流术需求的作用。同时,比较两组患儿1岁时神经发育与功能评分差异,评价持续脑室外引流术对患儿远期神经系统发育的影响。结果 术后第30天,手术组患儿侧脑室宽度[(35.2±11.0)mm比(42.5±8.9)mm]与颅骨宽度[(93.8±9.6)mm比(101.6±7.1)mm]均显著小于非手术组,差异具有统计学意义(P < 0.05);术后3个月随访时,手术组发生脑积水的概率明显低于非手术组(16/32比14/17), 差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。随访至1岁时,手术组患儿的神经发育评分总体优于非手术组,手术组语言发育障碍缓解更为显著(P < 0.05)。结论 对于新生儿重度脑室内出血,采用持续脑室外引流术可有效清除脑室内积血,显著降低脑积水发生概率,减少头围的异常增长,并能降低因脑出血及继发性脑积水所致的神经系统发育障碍风险,进而改善远期神经功能。
关键词脑室内出血    婴儿,新生    引流术    治疗结果    神经康复    预后    
A case-control study of continuous external ventricular drainage for severe intraventricular hemorrhage in neonates and long-term neurofunctional outcomes
Zhang Luyi , Zhang Gang , Zhang Yuhang , Shi Hangyu     
Department of Neurosurgery, Xi'an Children's Hospital, Xi'an 710003, China
Abstract: Objective To investigate the clinical efficacy of continuous external ventricular drainage in the treatment of severe intraventricular hemorrhage in neonates and to evaluate long-term neurofunctional outcomes. Methods This retrospective case-control study included 49 neonates with severe intraventricular hemorrhage. According to the treatment strategy, patients were divided into a surgical group (n=32), who underwent implantation of a ventricular reservoir or subcutaneous translocation external ventricular drainage, and a non-surgical group (n=17). Ventricular width and cranial width were measured at admission and at 7, 14, 30 days, as well as at 3 months after surgery, and the Evans index was calculated. The effectiveness of continuous external ventricular drainage in controlling the progression of post-hemorrhagic hydrocephalus and in reducing the subsequent need for ventriculoperitoneal shunting was evaluated. In addition, neurodevelopmental and functional scores at 1 year of age were compared between the two groups to assess the impact of continuous external ventricular drainage on long-term neurological development. Results At 30 days after admission, both lateral ventricular width and cranial width in the surgical group were significantly smaller than those in the non-surgical group, with statistically significant differences (P < 0.05). At the 3-month follow-up, the incidence of hydrocephalus in the surgical group was significantly lower than that in the non-surgical group (P < 0.05). At 1-year follow-up, overall neurodevelopmental scores in the surgical group were superior to those in the non-surgical group, with more pronounced improvement in language developmental delay in the surgical group (P < 0.05). Conclusions For neonates with severe intraventricular hemorrhage, continuous external ventricular drainage can effectively remove intraventricular blood, significantly reduce the incidence of hydrocephalus and abnormal head circumference growth, and decrease the risk of neurodevelopmental impairment caused by intracranial hemorrhage and secondary hydrocephalus, thereby improving long-term neurological outcomes.
Key words: Intraventricular Hemorrhage    Infant, Newborn    Drainage    Treatment Outcome    Neurological Rehabilitation    Prognosis    

新生儿脑室内出血(intraventricular hemorrhage, IVH)是新生儿期,特别是早产儿常见且严重的神经系统并发症之一,严重威胁患儿生命质量及远期预后,主要发生于胎龄 < 32周、出生体重 < 1 500 g的早产儿,尤其胎龄 < 28周的早产儿[1-2]。文献报道在出生体重 < 1 500 g的早产儿中发病率为15%~25%,其中重度IVH(Ⅲ~Ⅳ级)占5%~10%[3]。随着围产医学和新生儿重症监护技术的进步,极低/超低出生体重儿存活率逐年提高,但IVH的发生率仍然是一个严峻挑战。IVH的发生并非单一因素所致,而是血管内在因素与血流动力学外在因素相互作用的结果,如生发层基质特有的脆弱且富含血管的结构[4];脑血管自主调节功能不全,难以在血压波动时维持脑血流量的稳定[5];缺血、缺氧;血压波动;静脉压力增高;凝血功能障碍等[3, 6]。重度IVH(Ⅲ~Ⅳ级)往往与血块堵塞脑脊液循环通路以及脑膜淋巴管梗阻等因素相关[7]。而继发的进行性脑室扩张,即出血后脑积水(post hemorrhagic hydrocephalus, PHH),可导致颅内压增高,压迫脑组织,危害新生儿生命及远期神经发育[8]。目前,针对新生儿IVH的治疗效果欠佳,而重度IVH的手术治疗亦存在较大争议。本研究分析Ommaya囊植入并持续外引流和脑室钻孔外引流治疗新生儿IVH的临床效果,并评估其远期神经功能发育。

资料与方法 一、研究对象

本研究采用回顾性队列研究方法,以2020年1月至2025年1月西安市儿童医院神经外科收治的49例新生儿重度IVH患儿为研究对象,患儿均接受药物治疗(包括维生素K、神经营养药物、降颅压药物、血凝酶、抗癫痫药物),以及输注血浆、冷沉淀血液制品等支持治疗。其中32例接受脑室外引流术(包括脑室钻孔外引流术和Ommaya囊植入外接头皮针持续引流术),为手术组;17例因病情可予保守治疗或家属拒绝手术,而未接受手术治疗,为非手术组。非手术组治疗方案为腰椎穿刺术联合药物治疗,腰椎穿刺间隔时间为1~3 d,直至脑脊液转淡黄色为止。本研究经西安市儿童医院医学伦理委员会审核批准[2025-030-02],患儿家属均知情并签署知情同意书。患儿基本情况见表 1

表 1 手术组与非手术组新生儿脑室内出血患者基线资料 Table 1 Baseline characteristics of neonates with IVH in surgical and non-surgical groups
二、病例纳入和排除标准

病例纳入标准:①入院时年龄≤28 d;②经头颅CT或MRI检查明确诊断为重度IVH;③随访时间≥1年。

排除标准:①诊断IVH前已确诊为先天性脑积水;②合并其他神经系统先天畸形;③临床资料不完整;④随访过程中失访;⑤入院时诊断为IVH合并颅内感染。

三、诊断方法

患儿入院时均经头颅CT或MRI明确诊断为重度IVH(Ⅲ级或Ⅳ级),IVH严重程度根据Papile分级法进行评估[9]。Ⅰ级:单侧/双侧脑室管膜下出血;Ⅱ级:出血破入脑室,但不伴脑室扩大;Ⅲ级:脑室内出血伴脑室扩张;Ⅳ级:脑室内出血伴脑室周围出血性梗死。其中,Ⅲ级和Ⅳ级IVH为重度IVH。按照Evans指数测量方法,测量脑积水脑室扩张程度的同时,测量颅骨宽度,两侧侧脑室前角间的最大距离除以同一层面颅骨内板间的最大内径即可得到Evans指数,Evans指数大于0.3诊断为脑积水[10-11]

四、手术方法

手术均采用经额角脑室穿刺方式[12]。术前常规备皮,全身麻醉,手术穿刺点定位于冠状缝前2.0 cm、中线旁开2.0 cm,如患儿前囟较大,则避开前囟进行穿刺。术区贴膜,切开头皮全层,直达骨膜,定位穿刺点后,用磨钻磨出骨孔,直径约3 mm。电凝硬脑膜后用尖刀片或10 mL注射器针头划开或刺透硬膜。取穿刺引流管或脑室储液囊引流管,对准双侧外耳道连线中点方向进行穿刺,穿刺有脱空感后拔出针芯,见血性脑脊液流出。如放置脑室储液囊装置则剪除多余引流管,接储液囊后,将其埋置于穿刺点外侧约3 cm远离中线位置处;如放置脑室外引流管,则使用穿刺套筒皮下移行5~10 cm以上,于耳后穿出头皮,固定引流管后接输液器或脑室外引流装置,全层缝合头皮。固定引流管,最高处位于穿刺点上方10~15 cmH2O(1 cmH2O=0.098 kPa)。术后严密监测生命体征,监测引流量及引流液性质。如外接输液器,则每日更换输液器和引流瓶。引流原则为间歇性夹闭、定期开放引流,每2~4 h开放引流15~30 min,记录24小时引流量。患儿出现意识水平下降或颅高压症状时,缓慢降低引流瓶高度,每次降低2~3 cm;引流液清亮但量多时,逐渐升高引流瓶高度,减少引流,甚至临时夹闭。引流液颜色变为淡黄、清亮,且颅内压力基本恢复正常时,夹闭引流管24~48 h,如无明显不适则拔除引流管。

五、预后评估

采用Gesell发育量表评估两组存活患儿校正12月龄时发育情况[13]。包括社会适应性、大运动、精细动作、语言、个人-社交5个方面,将Gesell发育量表结果以发育商数(developmental quotient, DQ)表示,评分越高,发育越好。DQ=所测发育成熟年龄/实际年龄×100%。按DQ评分将校正12月龄时存活患儿神经发育障碍严重程度分为6级[14]。即:正常,DQ≥85分;正常偏低,75分≤DQ<85分;轻度,55分≤DQ<75分;中度,40分≤DQ<55分;重度,25分≤DQ<40分;极重度发育迟缓,DQ<25分。

六、统计学处理

采用SPSS 27.0进行统计分析。服从正态分布的连续变量资料以x±s表示,组间比较采用两独立样本t检验;分类变量资料采用频数、构成比表示,组间比较采用χ2检验或Fisher精确概率法;等级资料采用Mann-Whitney U检验;重复测量数据采用重复测量方差分析或Frideman秩方检验。P<0.05为差异有统计学意义。

结果

手术组32例中,16例行单侧脑室储液囊埋置术,11例行单侧皮下移行脑室钻孔外引流术,4例行双侧皮下移行脑室钻孔外引流术,1例行单侧脑室储液囊埋置术后再次行对侧皮下移行脑室钻孔外引流术。埋置Ommaya储液囊患儿均未行Ommaya储液囊拔除术,长期保留储液囊至1岁或行脑室-腹腔分流术时拔除。32例手术患儿中,无一例死亡,其中4例术后出现颅内感染,均为皮下移行脑室外引流病例,经抗感染治疗2~4周后,脑脊液恢复正常,但均在术后1个月内出现脑室快速扩大、脑积水形成,最终于术后3个月内行脑室-腹腔分流术;3例单侧脑室储液囊埋置术患儿出现引流不畅;16例于术后3个月随访时出现重度脑积水,发生率50%,其中13例最终行脑室-腹腔分流术,3例拒绝进一步手术治疗。

非手术组17例中,无一例发生颅内感染,1例于住院治疗期间出现凝血功能下降,输注血浆、凝血酶原复合物以及冷沉淀后缓解,2例再次出现脑室内出血,其余患儿治疗期间均未出现不良反应。17例出院后3个月随访时,14例出现重度脑积水,其中接受脑室-腹腔分流术8例,6例拒绝脑室-腹腔分流术治疗。与手术组相比,非手术组脑积水发生率(14/17,82%)较高,差异具有统计学意义(P=0.03,见表 2)。

表 2 两组新生儿脑室内出血病例不同时间点脑积水发生人数对比(例) Table 2 Comparison of the number of neonates with hydrocephalus at different timepoints between two groups (n)

两组患儿入院当天及手术后第7天、第14天、第30天和3月龄时侧脑室宽度及颅骨宽度测量值见表 3。统计分析显示入院以后脑室及颅骨的平均宽度均逐渐增大,至入院后30天时,手术组侧脑室宽度及颅骨宽度均小于非手术组,差异具有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。

表 3 两组新生儿脑室内出血病例不同时间点侧脑室宽度及颅骨宽度(x±s, mm) Table 3 Lateral ventricle width and cranial width at different timepoints in neonates with IVH in two groups(x±s, mm)

两组患儿1岁时神经发育评估结果显示,手术组与非手术组在社会适应性、大运动、精细动作、语言发育及个人-社交评分方面比较,差异均具有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。见表 4。语言发育障碍程度分级见表 5,两组相比,手术组评估为正常8例,正常偏低12例,轻度发育障碍9例,中度发育障碍2例,重度发育障碍1例;非手术组评估为正常1例,正常偏低2例,轻度发育障碍7例,中度发育障碍5例,重度发育障碍2例,差异具有统计学意义(P=0.02)。两组均无一例极重度发育障碍。

表 4 两组新生儿脑室内出血患儿1岁时神经发育DQ评分(x±s, 分) Table 4 Neurodevelopmental DQ scores at 1 year of age in neonates with IVH in two groups(x±s, points)

表 5 两组新生儿脑室内出血患儿1岁时神经发育-语言发育障碍分级(例) Table 5 Grading of neurodevelopmental language impairment at 1 year of age in neonates with IVH in two groups (cases)
讨论

新生儿重度IVH(Ⅲ级和Ⅳ级)是早产儿,尤其极早产儿和极低出生体重儿常见的严重并发症,常继发致命性PHH,并导致显著的神经发育障碍[15-18]。持续脑室外引流作为一种直接有效的脑脊液引流方式,在治疗IVH中起着至关重要的作用。本研究表明,脑室外引流(external ventricular drainage, EVD)能够迅速缓解颅内高压,控制进行性脑积水,为后续治疗和患儿脑功能恢复争取时间[19]。EVD治疗新生儿重度IVH可以有效控制颅内压与预防脑疝,降低因血肿和脑脊液积聚导致的高颅压,从而降低死亡率[20]。另外,持续引流有助于清除富含炎症因子和毒性物质的有害血性脑脊液,可能减轻其对脑室的持续刺激和二次损伤,为脑室壁和周围脑组织的修复创造条件[21-23]。通过引流,扩张的脑室得以部分回缩,有利于脑室重塑和后续治疗的开展,或使患儿有足够时间成长以耐受手术,同时可以避免反复腰椎穿刺引起的创伤和不便。相较于反复腰椎穿刺释放脑脊液,EVD能更持续有效地控制脑积水,减少操作次数。本研究中,两组患儿在7~14天随访时间内,脑积水发生概率最高;手术组于随访30天时,有19例出现脑积水,与随访14天时相比,5例因脑室内积血有效清除,脑积水缓解;随访至3月龄时,有16例发展为脑积水,发生率为50%。而非手术组随访时间7~30天,脑积水发生率基本稳定,随访至3月龄时发生率为82%,明显高于手术组,说明EVD清除脑室内积血的同时,可有效控制因出血以及颅内感染引起的脑积水,如果剔除因EVD术后颅内感染所致脑积水4例,手术组实际脑积水发生率为37.5%,差距更为显著。

手术组与非手术组入院30天时侧脑室宽度以及颅骨宽度比较,差异均具有统计学意义(P<0.05),证明脑室储液囊埋置或皮下移行脑室外引流术可有效控制脑积水进展,并可以有效控制颅内压,减缓患儿因脑室内出血以及脑积水引起的头围增大。而手术组和非手术组中绝大多数需行脑室-腹腔分流术的病例在3月龄时均已完成手术治疗,故侧脑室宽度以及颅骨宽度在3月龄随访时对比已无明显差异。

本研究手术组病例中,4例出现颅内感染,均为皮下移行脑室外引流术后,且感染均发生在术后5~15 d内,感染原因均为术后皮下移行出口处出现化脓性改变,且脓性分泌物多在缝合线处聚集,而皮下隧道因引流管占据以及头皮抗感染能力强,仅出现轻度红、肿、热、痛等感染表现。但脑脊液化验均提示颅内感染,分析其原因可能为长时间皮肤出口处存在管道、缝线等异物,导致易感性增加,伤口化脓后,抗生素治疗效果差[24-25]。此时皮肤感染经皮下隧道逆行至颅内,引起脑脊液异常,而新生儿免疫力较低,脑室内积血成为细菌生长的天然培养基,导致颅内感染爆发[26]。后续抗感染治疗期间均出现脑室快速增大,脑积水形成,分析其原因为脑室内出血后脑脊液循环障碍、蛛网膜颗粒阻塞、颅内感染后脑脊液重吸收能力进一步下降,种种因素叠加后导致脑积水形成速度快,脑室明显扩大,最终需接受脑室-腹腔分流术[27]

脑积水与认知功能障碍之间存在显著关联,其机制涉及脑脊液循环异常导致的脑组织压迫及神经功能损伤[28]。脑脊液异常积聚导致颅内压升高,并可直接压迫脑组织(尤其是额叶、海马等与认知相关的区域),干扰神经元代谢和突触连接,引发认知功能下降[29]。慢性颅内压增高还会导致进行性脑室扩大和脑白质萎缩,进一步损害信息处理速度和记忆存储能力[30]。脑脊液不仅是缓冲介质,还参与清除脑组织的代谢产物,循环受阻可能导致毒素积聚,加速神经元和突触退行性改变[22]。Gesell发育量表是目前临床最常用的适用于0~6岁婴幼儿的评估量表。改善脑积水可明显改善患儿认知功能,并有利于神经系统发育。随着医疗检查技术的发展和完善,通过对远期预后的早期评估,进而进行有效的早期干预,不但可以促进患儿神经系统早期发育,还能改善长期预后。本研究随访患儿1年数据,结果显示行持续脑室外引流术可以有效提高患儿Gesell发育量表评分,改善神经发育。在语言发育方面,持续脑室外引流术可以有效降低患儿发展为语言发育障碍的概率以及障碍程度,提升患儿后期生活水平和融入社会能力。

综上所述,新生儿IVH是新生儿急危重症,急需规范、合理和有针对性的治疗方案。持续脑室外引流可有效清除脑室内积血,缓解脑室扩大和头围增大程度,促进神经发育,对患儿语言功能保护具有积极意义。对于新生儿重度IVH,早期行脑室外引流术可能成为改善预后的关键策略。持续脑室外引流可有效降低后续脑积水的发生率,降低行脑室-腹腔分流术的概率。

利益冲突  所有作者声明不存在利益冲突

作者贡献声明  张鲁毅负责实验设计、录入数据、数据统计分析、文章撰写;张刚负责录入数据、数据统计分析与表格制作;张宇航负责数据整理、录入数据、数据统计分析;史航宇负责实验设计、研究指导、文章撰写、论文审阅

参考文献
[1]
Sayeed S, Theriault BC, Hengartner AC, et al. Insurance disparities in patient outcomes and healthcare resource utilization following neonatal intraventricular hemorrhage[J]. World Neurosurg, 2024, 189: e46-e54. DOI:10.1016/j.wneu.2024.05.136
[2]
Jin MC, Parker JJ, Rodrigues AJ, et al. Development of an integrated risk scale for prediction of shunt placement after neonatal intraventricular hemorrhage[J]. J Neurosurg Pediatr, 2022, 29(4): 444-453. DOI:10.3171/2021.11.PEDS21390
[3]
Garvey AA, Walsh BH, Inder TE. Pathogenesis and prevention of intraventricular hemorrhage[J]. Semin Perinatol, 2022, 46(5): 151592. DOI:10.1016/j.semperi.2022.151592
[4]
Ballabh P. Intraventricular hemorrhage in premature infants: me-chanism of disease[J]. Pediatr Res, 2010, 67(1): 1-8. DOI:10.1203/PDR.0b013e3181c1b176
[5]
Tsao PC. Pathogenesis and prevention of intraventricular hemorrhage in preterm infants[J]. J Korean Neurosurg Soc, 2023, 66(3): 228-238. DOI:10.3340/jkns.2022.0288
[6]
Sandoval Karamian AG, Yang QZ, Tam LT, et al. Intracranial hemorrhage in term and late-preterm neonates: an institutional perspective[J]. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol, 2022, 43(10): 1494-1499. DOI:10.3174/ajnr.A7642
[7]
Mestre H, Du T, Sweeney AM, et al. Cerebrospinal fluid influx drives acute ischemic tissue swelling[J]. Science, 2020, 367(6483): eaax7171. DOI:10.1126/science.aax7171
[8]
Pande GS, Vagha JD. A review of the occurrence of intraventricular hemorrhage in preterm newborns and its future neurodevelopmental consequences[J]. Cureus, 2023, 15(11): e48968. DOI:10.7759/cureus.48968
[9]
Zhou MC, Wang SP, Zhang T, et al. Neurodevelopmental outcomes in preterm or low birth weight infants with germinal matrix-intraventricular hemorrhage: a meta-analysis[J]. Pediatr Res, 2024, 95(3): 625-633. DOI:10.1038/s41390-023-02877-8
[10]
Sarı E, Sarı S, Akgün V, et al. Measures of ventricles and Evans' index: from neonate to adolescent[J]. Pediatr Neurosurg, 2015, 50(1): 12-17. DOI:10.1159/000370033
[11]
Rohatgi S, Dua A, Diociasi A, et al. Correlating Evans index, callosal angle, and lateral ventricle volume with gait response outcomes in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus diagnosis[J]. J Comput Assist Tomogr, 2024, 48(5): 814-818. DOI:10.1097/RCT.0000000000001602
[12]
Chen XH, Chen TD, Xie ZK, et al. Evaluation of the accuracy of 4 conventional freehand frontal ventriculostomy methods in the Chinese population[J]. Oper Neurosurg, 2024, 29(3): 351-360. DOI:10.1227/ons.0000000000001467
[13]
Koupernik C, Lambert D, Lebovici S. Gesell's tests in pediatrics[J]. Bull Med, 1950, 64(21): 477-478.
[14]
Liu D, Duan M, Chen CY, et al. Efficacy analysis of comprehensive rehabilitation therapy based on the Gesell developmental schedules among infants with global developmental delay of different ages: a retrospective study[J]. Front Neurol, 2025, 16: 1568643. DOI:10.3389/fneur.2025.1568643
[15]
Wang Y, Yang Y, Wen LJ, et al. Risk factors and nomogram for the prediction of intracranial hemorrhage in very preterm infants[J]. BMC Pediatr, 2024, 24(1): 793. DOI:10.1186/s12887-024-05274-0
[16]
Deger J, Goethe EA, LoPresti MA, et al. Intraventricular hemorrhage in premature infants: a historical review[J]. World Neurosurg, 2021, 153: 21-25. DOI:10.1016/j.wneu.2021.06.043
[17]
Chawla S, Natarajan G, Laptook AR, et al. Model for severe intracranial hemorrhage and role of early indomethacin in extreme preterm infants[J]. Pediatr Res, 2022, 92(6): 1648-1656. DOI:10.1038/s41390-022-02012-z
[18]
Herzberg EM, Machie M, Glass HC, et al. Seizure severity and treatment response in newborn infants with seizures attributed to intracranial hemorrhage[J]. J Pediatr, 2022, 242: 121-128. e1. DOI:10.1016/j.jpeds.2021.11.012
[19]
Chen LY, He MZ, Shi L, et al. Effects of modified external ventricular drainage vs.an Ommaya reservoir in the management of hydrocephalus with intracranial infection in pediatric patients[J]. Front Neurol, 2023, 14: 1303631. DOI:10.3389/fneur.2023.1303631
[20]
Yang XT, Feng DF, Zhao L, et al. Application of the Ommaya reservoir in managing ventricular hemorrhage[J]. World Neurosurg, 2016, 89: 93-100. DOI:10.1016/j.wneu.2015.12.040
[21]
Li CR, Yen CM, Yang MY, et al. Predictive factors for shunt dependency in patients with spontaneous intraventricular hemorrhage[J]. Sci Rep, 2024, 14(1): 26462. DOI:10.1038/s41598-024-76752-9
[22]
Thiex R, Tsirka SE. Brain edema after intracerebral hemorrhage: mechanisms, treatment options, management strategies, and operative indications[J]. Neurosurg Focus, 2007, 22(5): E6. DOI:10.3171/foc.2007.22.5.7
[23]
Wu BT, Zhou Y, Fan HJ, et al. Cerebrospinal fluid drainage and chronic hydrocephalus in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage patients with intraventricular hemorrhage[J]. Front Neurol, 2023, 14: 1302622. DOI:10.3389/fneur.2023.1302622
[24]
Roujansky A, Diop S, Pasqueron J, et al. Pathophysiology and prevention of ventriculostomy-related infections: a review[J]. Neurosurgery, 2025, 96(4): 744-750. DOI:10.1227/neu.0000000000003181
[25]
Håndstad M, Alaoui-Ismaili A, Juhler M, et al. A systematic review of reviews on ventriculostomy related infection definitions: a fundamental problem[J]. Neurosurg Rev, 2025, 48(1): 292. DOI:10.1007/s10143-025-03447-8
[26]
Arslan M, Aycan A, Gulsen I, et al. Relationship between hydrocephalus etiology and ventriculoperitoneal shunt infection in children and review of literature[J]. J Pak Med Assoc, 2018, 68(1): 38-41.
[27]
de Souza DN, Palla A, Yan RE, et al. Factors affecting infection risk and revision rates in shunted pediatric hydrocephalus: 10 years of data from a single academic center[J]. Childs Nerv Syst, 2025, 41(1): 320. DOI:10.1007/s00381-025-06980-5
[28]
Zhang ZQ, Guo PW, Huang SN, et al. Inhibiting microglia-derived NLRP3 alleviates subependymal edema and cognitive dysfunction in posthemorrhagic hydrocephalus after intracerebral hemorrhage via AMPK/beclin-1 pathway[J]. Oxid Med Cell Longev, 2022, 2022: 4177317. DOI:10.1155/2022/4177317
[29]
Skalický P, Mládek A, Vlasák A, et al. Normal pressure hydrocephalus-an overview of pathophysiological mechanisms and diagnostic procedures[J]. Neurosurg Rev, 2020, 43(6): 1451-1464. DOI:10.1007/s10143-019-01201-5
[30]
Hu YJ, Cao CG, Li MT, et al. Association between idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus and Alzheimer's disease: a bidirectional Mendelian randomization study[J]. Sci Rep, 2024, 14(1): 22744. DOI:10.1038/s41598-024-72559-w