Safety and effectiveness of bolt-mounted versus tunnelled external ventricular drains: A systematic review, meta-analysis and trial-sequential analysis

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Journal of Clinical Neuroscience Pub Date : 2026-03-01 Epub Date: 2026-01-13 DOI:10.1016/j.jocn.2026.111860
Shaan Patel , Shiva A. Nischal , Ayush Sinha , Kush M. Kale , Pious D. Patel , Jack Jallo , Srinivas K. Prasad
{"title":"Safety and effectiveness of bolt-mounted versus tunnelled external ventricular drains: A systematic review, meta-analysis and trial-sequential analysis","authors":"Shaan Patel ,&nbsp;Shiva A. Nischal ,&nbsp;Ayush Sinha ,&nbsp;Kush M. Kale ,&nbsp;Pious D. Patel ,&nbsp;Jack Jallo ,&nbsp;Srinivas K. Prasad","doi":"10.1016/j.jocn.2026.111860","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>External ventricular drains (EVDs) are fundamental to neurocritical care, yet substantial procedural heterogeneity persists, particularly regarding bolt-mounted versus tunnelled catheter fixation. The relative safety and effectiveness of these approaches remain unclear, with conflicting data from observational studies and a lack of trial-level evidence.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To compare bolt-mounted and tunnelled EVDs across accuracy, reoperation, and key safety outcomes using systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial-sequential analysis.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Following PRISMA guidelines, PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched (November 2025) for randomised or observational studies comparing bolt-mounted with tunnelled EVDs in adults. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes were optimal catheter placement (Kakarla Grade I) and reoperation for EVD-related complications. Secondary outcomes included iatrogenic intracranial haemorrhage (ICH), cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) infection, CSF leak, catheter obstruction or malfunction, accidental discontinuation, and drainage duration. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted using restricted maximum likelihood estimation. Heterogeneity was quantified, and certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Trial-sequential analysis was performed for reoperation to determine whether available data met required information size thresholds.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Ten studies encompassing 2008 patients (800 bolt-mounted, 1208 tunnelled) were included. Bolt-mounted EVDs demonstrated significantly higher optimal catheter accuracy (RR 1.27; 95% CI: 1.06–1.51; <em>P &lt;</em> 0.01; I<sup>2</sup> = 29.6 %). Reoperation was numerically lower with bolt-mounted systems (RR 0.51; 95% CI: 0.22–1.36; <em>P =</em> 0.19; I<sup>2</sup> = 85 %), although trial-sequential analysis showed the cumulative Z-curve crossed the monitoring boundary without reaching the required information size, indicating insufficient evidence for definitive inference. Bolt-mounted EVDs were associated with lower CSF leak risk (RR 0.13; 95% CI: 0.04–0.47; <em>P &lt;</em> 0.01) and reduced catheter obstruction (RR 0.46; 95% CI: 0.25–0.83; <em>P</em> &lt; 0.05). No significant differences were observed in iatrogenic ICH (RR 1.23; 95% CI: 0.54–2.81; <em>P =</em> 0.62), CSF infection (RR 0.88; 95% CI: 0.71–1.09; <em>P =</em> 0.23), accidental discontinuation (RR 0.41; 95% CI: 0.11–1.59; <em>P =</em> 0.20), or drainage duration (MD 0.56 days; 95% CI = -1.02–2.13; <em>P</em> = 0.49).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Bolt-mounted EVDs were associated with higher catheter accuracy, reduced CSF leak, and improved mechanical reliability without increased infection or haemorrhage. Although reoperation may be lower with bolt-mounted systems, current evidence remains underpowered for firm conclusions. These findings challenge historical assumptions regarding tunnelled catheters and may inform context-specific device selection in contemporary neurocritical care.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15487,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Neuroscience","volume":"145 ","pages":"Article 111860"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967586826000111","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

External ventricular drains (EVDs) are fundamental to neurocritical care, yet substantial procedural heterogeneity persists, particularly regarding bolt-mounted versus tunnelled catheter fixation. The relative safety and effectiveness of these approaches remain unclear, with conflicting data from observational studies and a lack of trial-level evidence.

Objective

To compare bolt-mounted and tunnelled EVDs across accuracy, reoperation, and key safety outcomes using systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial-sequential analysis.

Methods

Following PRISMA guidelines, PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched (November 2025) for randomised or observational studies comparing bolt-mounted with tunnelled EVDs in adults. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes were optimal catheter placement (Kakarla Grade I) and reoperation for EVD-related complications. Secondary outcomes included iatrogenic intracranial haemorrhage (ICH), cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) infection, CSF leak, catheter obstruction or malfunction, accidental discontinuation, and drainage duration. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted using restricted maximum likelihood estimation. Heterogeneity was quantified, and certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Trial-sequential analysis was performed for reoperation to determine whether available data met required information size thresholds.

Results

Ten studies encompassing 2008 patients (800 bolt-mounted, 1208 tunnelled) were included. Bolt-mounted EVDs demonstrated significantly higher optimal catheter accuracy (RR 1.27; 95% CI: 1.06–1.51; P < 0.01; I2 = 29.6 %). Reoperation was numerically lower with bolt-mounted systems (RR 0.51; 95% CI: 0.22–1.36; P = 0.19; I2 = 85 %), although trial-sequential analysis showed the cumulative Z-curve crossed the monitoring boundary without reaching the required information size, indicating insufficient evidence for definitive inference. Bolt-mounted EVDs were associated with lower CSF leak risk (RR 0.13; 95% CI: 0.04–0.47; P < 0.01) and reduced catheter obstruction (RR 0.46; 95% CI: 0.25–0.83; P < 0.05). No significant differences were observed in iatrogenic ICH (RR 1.23; 95% CI: 0.54–2.81; P = 0.62), CSF infection (RR 0.88; 95% CI: 0.71–1.09; P = 0.23), accidental discontinuation (RR 0.41; 95% CI: 0.11–1.59; P = 0.20), or drainage duration (MD 0.56 days; 95% CI = -1.02–2.13; P = 0.49).

Conclusions

Bolt-mounted EVDs were associated with higher catheter accuracy, reduced CSF leak, and improved mechanical reliability without increased infection or haemorrhage. Although reoperation may be lower with bolt-mounted systems, current evidence remains underpowered for firm conclusions. These findings challenge historical assumptions regarding tunnelled catheters and may inform context-specific device selection in contemporary neurocritical care.
栓装与隧道式外心室引流的安全性和有效性:系统回顾、荟萃分析和试验序列分析
外脑室引流(evd)是神经危重症治疗的基础,但在操作上的异质性仍然存在,特别是在螺栓固定与隧道导管固定方面。这些方法的相对安全性和有效性尚不清楚,观察性研究的数据相互矛盾,缺乏试验水平的证据。目的通过系统评价、荟萃分析和试验序列分析,比较螺栓式和隧道式evd在准确性、再手术和关键安全性方面的差异。方法遵循PRISMA指南,检索PubMed、Embase和CENTRAL数据库(2025年11月),比较成人螺栓安装与隧道式evd的随机或观察性研究。两位审稿人独立筛选研究、提取数据并评估偏倚风险。主要结果为最佳导管放置(Kakarla分级I级)和evd相关并发症的再手术。次要结局包括医源性颅内出血(ICH)、脑脊液(CSF)感染、CSF泄漏、导管阻塞或故障、意外停药和引流时间。随机效应荟萃分析采用限制性最大似然估计进行。对异质性进行量化,并使用GRADE评估证据的确定性。对再操作进行试验-序列分析,以确定可用数据是否满足所需的信息大小阈值。结果纳入了10项研究,包括2008例患者(800例螺栓安装,1208例隧道)。螺栓式evd显示出更高的最佳导管准确性(RR 1.27; 95% CI: 1.06-1.51; P < 0.01; I2 = 29.6%)。螺栓安装系统的再手术数值较低(RR 0.51; 95% CI: 0.22-1.36; P = 0.19; I2 = 85%),尽管试验-序列分析显示累积z曲线越过监测边界,但未达到所需的信息大小,表明明确推断的证据不足。栓装evd与较低的脑脊液泄漏风险(RR 0.13; 95% CI: 0.04-0.47; P < 0.01)和减少导管阻塞(RR 0.46; 95% CI: 0.25-0.83; P < 0.05)相关。在医源性脑出血(RR 1.23, 95% CI: 0.54-2.81, P = 0.62)、脑脊液感染(RR 0.88, 95% CI: 0.71-1.09, P = 0.23)、意外停药(RR 0.41, 95% CI: 0.11-1.59, P = 0.20)或引流时间(MD 0.56天,95% CI = -1.02-2.13, P = 0.49)方面,两组间无显著差异。结论螺栓安装evd具有更高的导管准确性,减少CSF泄漏,提高机械可靠性,而不会增加感染或出血。尽管螺栓安装系统的再手术率可能较低,但目前的证据仍不足以得出确切的结论。这些发现挑战了关于隧道导管的历史假设,并可能为当代神经危重症护理中特定环境的设备选择提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Neuroscience
Journal of Clinical Neuroscience 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
402
审稿时长
40 days
期刊介绍: This International journal, Journal of Clinical Neuroscience, publishes articles on clinical neurosurgery and neurology and the related neurosciences such as neuro-pathology, neuro-radiology, neuro-ophthalmology and neuro-physiology. The journal has a broad International perspective, and emphasises the advances occurring in Asia, the Pacific Rim region, Europe and North America. The Journal acts as a focus for publication of major clinical and laboratory research, as well as publishing solicited manuscripts on specific subjects from experts, case reports and other information of interest to clinicians working in the clinical neurosciences.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书