Management of trans-vaginal extrusion of the distal ventriculoperitoneal shunt catheter: a systematic literature review from 1973 to 2021

INTRODUCTION

Ventriculoperitoneal shunt (VPS) catheter insertion is one of the most frequently performed neurosurgical procedures, for the treatment of hydrocephalus.^1-4 A variety of complications are known to occurs after the VPS insertion, and many of them require VPS revisions.^5-8 Perforation of the abdominal hollow viscera and extrusion of the distal VPS catheter through the natural orifices is also a known complication. Extrusion of the distal VPS catheter through the anal canal is the commonest, followed by the trans-urethra extrusion, trans-oral extrusion, and trans-vaginal extrusions.^9-12 Extrusion of the distal VPS catheter through the vaginal orifice has also been reported but less frequent, and twenty such cases have been reported to date.^13-31 A systematic literature review was performed for 19 such cases to highlight demographics, clinical characteristics, surgical interventions executed, complications, and the outcome.^13-30

METHODS

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines are-followed for this literature review. An electronic database search was performed for the retrieval of literature, on the management of trans-vaginal extrusion of the distal VPS catheter. Various keywords were employed for the online search and were; “trans-vaginal extrusion of VPS catheter”, trans-vaginal extrusion of peritoneal shunt catheter”, “extrusion of shunt catheter through the vagina”, “extrusion of distal VPS catheter”, and “rare/unusual complication of VPS catheter”. The literature and case reports were- retrieved from 1973 to September 30, 2021.

One such case with incomplete desired details was excluded. The cases published on the perforation of the fallopian tube/uterus by the distal VPS catheter, but without per-vaginal extrusion of the same were excluded. The final selection of manuscripts for this review was done by assessing the full texts. The literature search, manuscripts selection, and retrieval of the desired variables/information were done by the author alone. Institutional ethical committee approval was not required for this review.

RESULTS

The result of an electronic database search of literature/manuscript for the management of the trans-vaginal extrusion of the distal VPS catheter is provided as PRISMA flow chart in Figure 1. A total 20 cases on the management of the above-mentioned complication were retrieved.^13-31 A case was excluded from the review, due to the incomplete desired details.³¹ A total of 19 cases were recruited for the systematic review and retrieved from the 18 manuscripts.^13-30 Fifteen manuscripts are available in the English language.^{13,14,17-21,23-30} Three of the manuscripts are available in a language other than English.^15,16,22 The demographics and other clinical details of the 19 cases of trans-vaginal extrusion of the distal VPS catheter are provided in Table 1. The summary of the result, obtained from the systematic review of the 19 cases of trans-vaginal extrusion of the distal VPS catheter are provided in Table 2.

Cong=Congenital, Hydroc=Hydrocephalus, NA=Not available, NTD=Neural tube defect, VPS=Ventriculoperitoneal shunt, (R)=revision.

CSF=Cerebrospinal fluid, Cong=Congenital, Hydroc=Hydrocephalus, VPS=Ventriculoperitoneal shunt

DISCUSSION

The extrusion of the distal VPS catheter through the natural orifices is a known complication of the VPS insertion.^9-12 The most common amongst the above is the trans-anal extrusion of the distal VPS catheter. It was first reported by Sells et al in 1973, and since then, approximately 275 such cases have been reported. Trans-anal extrusion of distal VPS catheter has been reported in 0.2 to 2.5% of the VPS insertion done for the treatment of hydrocephalus.^5,9,11,32-34 Trans-urethral extrusion of the distal VPS catheter has been reported in approximately 30 cases to date.^10,11,33-35 Trans-oral extrusion of the distal VPS catheter has also been reported in approximately 30 cases to date.^{11,12,33,36,37} The extrusion of the distal VPS catheter through the vaginal orifice has also been reported but is less frequent than all the above extrusions. In 1973, Patel et al first-time reported trans-vaginal extrusion of the distal VPS catheter in a child, and since then, only 20 such cases have been reported to date.^13-31 An infant with extrusion of the distal VPS catheter in between the labium majus and the labium minus has also been reported and retrieved during the search. The distal VPS catheter was not extruded through the vagina as such, and the same was not included for review.³⁸ During an online literature search, one case of hydrosalpinx, one case of fallopian tube perforation and, one case of uterine perforation by the distal VPS catheter were also retrieved but were without the extrusion through the vagina and were excluded from the review. The above three cases presented with vaginal CSF discharges.^39-41

This systematic review revealed that the trans-vaginal extrusion of the distal VPS catheter occurred across all age groups. The mean age of the 15 children at the time of diagnosis of trans-vaginal extrusion of distal VPS catheter was 18.13 (17.47 SD) months, and ranged from 2 to 72 months. Four-fifth (n=15) of the cases were children below the age of 6 years, and four were adults. In 8 (42.1%) children, the complication was detected within 12 months of age. In 6 (31.57%) children, it was diagnosed during 13 to 36 months of life, and 4 (21.05%) of the cases were adults.

The indications for the initial/primary placement of the VPS catheter in the order of frequency were, (a) Hydrocephalus of congenital origin (congenital hydrocephalus) 11 (57.89%), (b) Hydrocephalus associated with neural tube defect (NTD) or hydrocephalus developed after the repair of the NTD, 4 (21.05%), (c) Hydrocephalus due to brain tumor 2 (10.52%), (d) post-infectious hydrocephalus (n=1), and (e) Other (n=1). In two-third (n=13) children, the primary VPS insertion was done during infancy. It was done during the 25 to 36 months of age in n=2 children, and in 3 of the cases were adults. The mean age at the primary VPS insertion for 15 children was 7.86 (10.49 SD) months, and ranged from 1 to 36 months.

For the entire cases, the interval from the initial VPS insertion/VPS revision to the diagnosis of trans-vaginal extrusion of the distal VPS catheter ranged from 1 to 36 months, with a mean of 8.16 (9.38 SD) months. For the cases with a prior history of VPS revision(s), the interval was calculated from the last VPS revision to the diagnosis of trans-vaginal extrusion of the distal VPS catheter. In three-fourth (n=15) of the cases, said complication was detected within 12 months of the VPS implantation, and two-third (n=13) of them were evidenced during the first 6-months following the VPS insertion.

Extrusion of the distal VPS catheter through the vagina was the chief complaint about the entire case. Additional symptoms were watery vaginal discharge (n=10), symptoms relating to the central nervous system (n=5), and lower abdominal pain/discomfort (n=2). Clinical examination revealed signs of meningitis in four of the cases. None of the cases had the features of peritonitis. In two-third of the case (n=13) VPS catheter was functional, and it was draining CSF. Clinical diagnosis was obvious in all the cases due to the findings of trans-vaginal extruded distal VPS catheter. The radiological investigations were carried out and were plain x-rays (n=19), cranial CT scan (n=8), and CT scan of the abdomen (n=4). CSF obtained during the therapy were positive for pathogens in 5 of the cases.^{13,15,21,26,29}

Surgical procedures offered for the trans-vaginal extrusion of the distal VPS catheter were (A) removal of the entire VPS catheter (n=14), and (B) removal of the distal/peritoneal VPS catheter (n=3). Surgical intervention was not needed/not required for one of the cases. The management details for one of the cases were not available/not provided by the author.

The site of perforation by the distal VPS catheter was reported as (a) vaginal wall (n=4), (b) vaginal cuff (n=3), (c) fallopian tube (n=2), (d) Cul-de-sac (n=1), and details not available/not mentioned by the authors (n=9). In 16 cases, perforation was not repaired and that healed spontaneously after removal of the migrated VPS catheter.^{13-15,18-20,22-30} The perforation was repaired in two of the cases only.^16,21 Three-fourth (n=14) of the cases were managed by using percutaneous surgical procedures, for the removal of the extruded VPS catheter.^13-15,18-27 Two of the authors managed their cases by doing laparotomy.^16,30 One author managed his case by doing laparoscopic procedures.²⁹ At one occasion, active surgical therapy was not required, as the distal VPS catheter spontaneously passed per-vaginum.²⁸ One of authors did not mention the management part of case.¹⁷

Revision of the VPS catheter was executed in 17 of the cases. Delayed re-VPS insertion was preferred by the authors and was carried out in 10 cases. The immediate revision of the distal/peritoneal part of the VPS catheter was done for 2 cases. Conversion to a ventriculo-pleural shunt was carried out in two of the cases. The third ventriculostomy was carried out in two of the cases. Re-VPS insertion was not required for one of the cases, and details were not available for another case.

The postoperative complication was documented in one case, and the same child died during management. She had clinical meningitis, and her CSF was also positive for bacterial growth. She died of the meningitis; a complication of the VPS insertion done for the treatment of hydrocephalus.¹⁵

The exact cause for the occurrence of the trans-vaginal extrusion of the distal VPS catheter is not known. Amongst 19 cases included for review, 15 were children below the age of 6-years and four were adults. Seven of the cases had a prior history of the VPS revisions.^{15,17,19,21,23,27,28} Three adults had a prior history of hysterectomy, and the site of perforation was the vaginal cuff.^14,21,24 The extrusion of the distal VPS catheter through the natural orifices, including trans-vaginal extrusion especially, in children, is a cumulative effect of the small peritoneal cavity, insertion of the extended length of the distal VPS catheter, the thinness of the visceral wall, an inflammatory reaction caused by the prior VPS revision/abdominal procedures, inflammatory reaction and mechanical pressure effect generated by the CSF, tissue reaction for the VPS catheter, and intra-abdominal pressure.

Limitations

The major limitation of the present review is that the cases were limited. A case was excluded from the present review due to the unavailability of full-text/desired information in the manuscript. An infant with extrusion of the distal VPS catheter in between the labium majus and the labium minus was also excluded from review. Three cases were also not included for the review, as all of them presented with vaginal discharges, but without the trans-vaginal extrusion of the distal VPS catheter.

CONCLUSION

Extrusion of the distal VPS catheter through the vaginal orifice is a rare complication of VPS insertion done for the treatment of hydrocephalus. Trans-vaginal extrusion of the distal VPS catheter occurred across all the age groups but was more common during early childhood. It occurred within 6-months of the VPS insertion, in three-fourth of the cases. Three-fourth of the cases were managed by the removal of the entire VPS catheter. For VPS revision, delayed re-VPS insertion was the preferred option. This review finding also suggests that repair of the perforation site is not mandatory, and after removal of the extruded/migrated VPS catheter, it would heal spontaneously. Invasive surgical procedures are also not advisable for the management of such cases.

Funding: No funding sources

Conflict of interest: None declared

Ethical approval: Not required

REFERENCES

1. 1. Isaacs AM, Riva-Cambrin J, Yavin D, Hockley A, Pringsheim TM, Jette N et al. Age-specific global epidemiology of hydrocephalus: Systematic review, metanalysis and global birth surveillance. PloS One. 2018;13:e0204926.
2. 2. Dewan MC, Rattani A, Mekary R, Glancz LJ, Yunusa I, Baticulon RE et al. Global hydrocephalus epidemiology and incidence: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neurosurg. 2019;130:1065-79.
3. 3. Stagno V, Navarrete EA, Mirone G, Esposito F. Management of hydrocephalus around the world. World Neurosurg. 2013;79:S23.e17-20.
4. 4. Rizvi I, Garg RK, Malhotra HS, Kumar N, Sharma E, Srivastava C et al. Ventriculo-peritoneal shunt surgery for tuberculous meningitis: A systematic review. J Neurol Sci. 2017;375:255-63.
5. 5. Ghritlaharey RK, Budhwani KS, Shrivastava DK, Srivastava J. Ventriculoperitoneal shunt complications needing shunt revision in children: A review of 5 years of experience with 48 revisions. Afr J Paediatr Surg. 2012;9:32-9.
6. 6. Merkler AE, Ch'ang J, Parker WE, Murthy SB, Kamel H. The rate of complications after ventriculoperitoneal shunt surgery. World Neurosurg. 2017;98:654-8.
7. 7. Mansoor N, Solheim O, Fredriksli OA, Gulati S. Revision and complication rates in adult shunt surgery: a single-institution study. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2021;163:447-54.
8. 8. Donoho DA, Buchanan IA, Rangwala SD, Patel A, Ding L, Giannotta SL et al. Readmissions after ventricular shunting in pediatric patients with hydrocephalus: A nationwide readmissions database analysis. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2021:1-10.
9. 9. Ghritlaharey RK, Budhwani KS, Shrivastava DK, Gupta G, Kushwaha AS, Nanda M et al. Trans-anal protrusion of ventriculo-peritoneal shunt catheter with silent bowel perforation: report of ten cases in children. Pediatr Surg Int. 2007;23:575-80.
10. 10. Miranda ME, de Sousa MB, Tatsuo ES, Quites LV, Giannetti AV. Bladder perforation by ventriculoperitoneal shunt. Childs Nerv Syst. 2016;32:2321-6.
11. 11. Faheem M, Jaiswal M, Prajapati HP, Kumar R, Saba Nu, Ojha BK. Unusual complications of ventriculoperitoneal shunt surgery: Tertiary care experience. J Pediatr Neurosci. Available at: https://www.pediatricneurosciences.com/preprintarticle.asp?id=320385. Accessed on 04 October 2021.
12. 12. Ghritlaharey RK. Review of the management of peroral extrusion of ventriculoperitoneal shunt catheter. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10:PE01-6.
13. 13. Patel CD, Matloub H. Vaginal perforation as a complication of ventriculoperitoneal shunt. Case report. J Neurosurg. 1973;38:761-2.
14. 14. Mozingo JR, Cauthen JC. Vaginal perforation by a Raimondi peritoneal catheter in an adult. Surg Neurol. 1974;2:195-6.
15. 15. Pianetti Filho G, Cabral G, Fonseca LF, al Filho JA. Vaginal perforation as complication of ventriculo-peritoneal shunt: report of a case. Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 1991;49:362-4.
16. 16. Pereira CU, da Silva AD, Gonzaga AKV, Santos JD. Extrusão do cateter peritoneal pela vagina. Arq Bras Neurocir. 1999;18:49-50.
17. 17. Farrokhi M, Tavallaee G. Unusual migration of the distal catheter of a ventriculoperitoneal shunt into the vagina. Iran J Med Sci. 2007;32:182-4.
18. 18. Kumar B, Sharma SB, Singh DK. Extrusion of ventriculo-peritoneal shunt catheter. Indian J Pediatr. 2010;77:336.
19. 19. Altas M, Tutanc M, Aras M, Altas ZG, Arica V. Vaginal perforation caused by distal tip of ventriculoperitoneal shunt: Report of a rare complication. Pak J Med Sci. 2012;28:550-1.
20. 20. Teegala R, Kota LP. Unusual complications of ventriculo peritoneal shunt surgery. J Neurosci Rural Pract. 2012;3:361-4.
21. 21. Bonfield CM, Weiner GM, Bradley MS, Engh JA. Vaginal extrusion of a ventriculo-peritoneal shunt catheter in an adult. J Neurosci Rural Pract. 2015;6:97-9.
22. 22. Tavallaee SG. Unusual migration of ventriculo peritoneal distal catheter into vagina. ISMJ. 2015;18:235-8.
23. 23. Lotfinia I, Tubbs S, Mahdkhah A. Vaginal extrusion of a ventriculoperitoneal shunt: A case report and review of literature. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2017;30:e23-5.
24. 24. Houten JK, Smith S, Schwartz AY. Vaginal migration of ventriculoperitoneal shunt catheter and crebrospinal fluid leak as a complication of hysterectomy. World Neurosurg. 2017;104:1046.e13-14.
25. 25. Chugh A, Gotecha S, Amle G, Patil A, Punia P, Kotecha M. Abnormal migration and extrusion of abdominal end of ventriculoperitoneal shunt: An experience of eight cases. J Pediatr Neurosci. 2018;13:317-21.
26. 26. Soufiany I, Hijrat KA, Soufiany S, Chen L. Mechanisms and major sites of distal catheter migration in ventriculoperitoneal shunting maneuvers: A review article. Brain Sci Advances. 2018;4:141-55.
27. 27. Korulmaz A, Alakaya M, Kaya S, Hamzaoglu V, Tezol Ö, Arslanköylü AE. A rare cause of vaginal foreign body: Ventriculoperitoneal shunt migration. J Pediatr Neurosci. 2019;14:109.
28. 28. Sahinturk F, Sonmez E, Altinors N. Spontaneous vaginal extrusion of the distal catheter of a ventriculoperitoneal shunt. Cesk Slov Neurol N. 2020;83:207-8.
29. 29. Lord S, Robinson T, Spurgas M. Ventriculoperitoneal shunt migration with vaginal extrusion via the fallopian tube. J Pediatric Surg Case Rep. 2020;57:101468.
30. 30. Hidayat I, Syahputra DA, Isa MM. Unusual migration of distal ventriculoperitoneal shunt to vagina via fallopian tube: A case report. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2021;63:102158.
31. 31. Aghazadeh J, Mehrzad SM. Extrusion of ventriculo peritoneal through the vagina shunt catheter. J Urmia University of Med Sci. 2008;18:688-90.
32. 32. Sells CJ, Loeser JD. Peritonitis following perforation of the bowel: a rare complication of a ventriculoperitoneal shunt. J Pediatr. 1973;83:823-4.
33. 33. Ezzat AAM, Soliman MAR, Hasanain AA, Thabit MA, Elshitany H, Kandel H et al. Migration of the distal catheter of ventriculoperitoneal shunts in pediatric age group: Case series. World Neurosurg. 2018;119:e131-7.
34. 34. Sinha VD, Bhardwaj S, Purohit D, Chopra S. Unusual extrusion of distal end of ventriculoperitoneal shunt: Case series with literature review. Interdisciplinary Neurosur. 2021;24:101026.
35. 35. Liang R, Yang X, Liu Y, Zhang Y. Extrusion of the distal end of ventriculoperitoneal shunt through the urethral orifice in an adult male. Neurol India. 2021;69:230-1.
36. 36. Shah AS, Singh D, Loomba P, Singh H, Mittal A, Srivastava S. Peroral extrusion of ventriculoperitoneal shunt: An unusual complication and review of literature. Ind J Neurosurg. 2016;5:196-201.
37. 37. Feeney V, Ansar N, Donaldson-Hugh B, Alalade AF. Transoral protrusion of a ventriculoperitoneal catheter caused by jejunal perforation in an adult: rare case report and review of the literature. World Neurosurg. 2020;137:200-5.
38. 38. Nagulic M, Djordjevic M, Samardzic M. Peritoneo-vulvar catheter extrusion after shunt operation. Childs Nerv Syst. 1996;12:222-3.
39. 39. Washington EC, Holmes M, Haines SJ, Ringwood JW. Ventriculoperitoneal shunt migration presenting with vaginal discharge and hydrosalpinx in a 16-year-old patient. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2002;18:28-30.
40. 40. Faquini IV, Fonseca RB, Junior AB, de Albuquerque Leimig BC, e Silva EJ, Lima LS et al. Vaginal cerebrospinal fluid discharge due to fallopian tube perforation by distal catheter of ventriculoperitoneal shunt: A case report. Interdisciplinary Neurosur. 2021;23:100977.
41. 41. Poilblanc M, Sentilhes L, Mercier P, Lefèbvre C, Descamps P. Uterine perforation by a cystoperitoneal shunt, an unusual cause of recurrent vaginal discharge. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2012;34:63-5.