Comparison of a bolt-connected external ventricular drain with a tunneled external ventricular drain - a narrative review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT

External ventricular drain (EVD) is one of the most commonly performed neurosurgical procedures. EVD can be associated with high rates of complications like misplacement, iatrogenic hemorrhage, and CSF infection. Several modifications have been proposed in the EVD insertion techniques to decrease the risk of these complications. Bolt-connected EVD, one of these modifications which involves insertion of a bolt in the burr hole, has been proposed to have better chances of optimal placement of EVD tip, lesser risk of CSF infection, and accidental pullout. A comprehensive search of different databases was performed to retrieve studies comparing the bolt-connected EVD with tunneled EVD and meta-analysis was done. Seven studies met inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Our analysis revealed that bolt-connected EVD is associated with significantly better chances of optimal placement than traditional tunneled EVD (MH OR-1.65, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.40, p = 0.008). We also observed that bolt-connected EVD is associated with significantly decreased risk of CSF infection (MH OR-0.60, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.94, p = 0.026), EVD malfunction (MH OR-0.31, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.58, p = 0.0003), and accidental disconnection (MH OR-0.09, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.26, p < 0.0001) as compared to traditional tunneled EVD. The difference between the two techniques was not statistically significant for complications, multiple punctures done for insertion of EVD, iatrogenic intracranial, and need of reoperation. Bolt-connected external ventricular drain is associated with significantly more chances of optimal placement and lesser chances of accidental discontinuation and CSF infection than tunneled EVD. There was no statistically significant difference noted between the two techniques for multiple punctures done for insertion of EVD, iatrogenic intracranial hemorrhage and need of reoperation. However, most of the included studies were retrospective. Thus, the results from the meta-analysis should be interpreted with caution as further prospective high-quality studies are needed.