Experience in endoscope choice for neuroendoscopic lavage for intraventricular hemorrhage of prematurity: a systematic review

Abstract

Abstract Objective Intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) of prematurity occurs in 20–38% of infants born < 28 weeks gestational age and 15% of infants born in 28–32 weeks gestational age. Treatment has evolved from conservative management and CSF diversion of temporizing and shunting procedures to include strategies aimed at primarily clearing intraventricular blood products. Neuroendoscopic lavage (NEL) aims to decrease the intraventricular blood burden under the same anesthetic as temporizing CSF diversion measures in cases of hydrocephalus from IVH of prematurity. Given the variety of neuroendoscopes, we sought to review the literature and practical considerations to help guide neuroendoscope selection when planning NEL. Methods We conducted a systematic review of the literature on neuroendoscopic lavage in IVH of prematurity to examine data on the choice of neuroendoscope and outcomes regarding shunt rate. We then collected manufacturer data on neuroendoscopic devices, including inflow and outflow mechanisms, working channel specifications, and tools compatible with the working channel. We paired this information with the advantages and disadvantages reported in the literature and observations from the experiences of pediatric neurosurgeons from several institutions to provide a pragmatic evaluation of international clinical experience with each neuroendoscope in NEL. Results Eight studies were identified; four neuroendoscopes have been used for NEL as reported in the literature. These include the Karl Storz Flexible Neuroendoscope, LOTTA® system, GAAB system, and Aesculap MINOP® system. The LOTTA® and MINOP® systems were similar in setup and instrument options. Positive neuroendoscope features for NEL include increased degrees of visualization, better visualization with the evolution of light and camera sources, the ability to sterilize with autoclave processes, balanced inflow and outflow mechanisms via separate channels, and a working channel. Neuroendoscope disadvantages for NEL may include special sterilization requirements, large outer diameter, and limitations in working channels. Conclusions A neuroendoscope integrating continuous irrigation, characterized by measured inflow and outflow via separate channels and multiple associated instruments, appears to be the most commonly used technology in the literature. As neuroendoscopes evolve, maximizing clear visualization, adequate inflow, measured outflow, and large enough working channels for paired instrumentation while minimizing the footprint of the outer diameter will be most advantageous when applied for NEL in premature infants.