Skip to main content
. 2018 Jun 7;9:421. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2018.00421

Table 2.

Baseline data for shunt intervention method comparison (ventriculoperitoneal shunt vs. lumboperitoneal shunt).

Shunt total number VP shunt number LP shunt number VP vs. LP p-value
Patient number (%) 974 417 (42.8%) 540 (55.4%)
Age: mean (SD) 77.29 (6.12) 76.9 (6.20) 77.6 (6.08) 0.087
Gender male (%) 578 240 (57.6%) 326 (60.1%)
INITIAL SYMPTOMS
Gait disturbance 749 324 (77.3%) 416 (77.0%)
Cognitive impairment 353 151 (36.1%) 194 (35.9%)
Urinary incontinence 185 74 (17.7%) 111 (20.6%)
EXAMINATION
PVI 569 263(63.1%) 305(56.5%)
CIL 94 46(11.0%) 48(8.9%)
COMORBIDITY
Hypertension 403 166 (39.8%) 230 (42.6%)
Hyperlipidemia 139 55 (13.2%) 81 (15%)
Diabetes mellitus 181 77 (18.5%) 100 (18.5%)
Cervical spondylosis 33 16 (3.8%) 17 (3.1%)
Lumbar spondylosis 114 58 (13.9%) 50 (9.3%)
Alzheimer disease 108 38 (9.1%) 67 (12.4%)
OUTCOME
mRS grade at baseline: mean (SD) 2.70 (0.77) 2.73 (0.76) 2.66 (0.76) 0.561
mRS outcome grade: mean (SD) 2.00 (0.93) 2.01 (0.92) 1.98 (0.93) 0.927
mRS improved 582 254 (60.9%) 317 (58.7%)

Data represent the number (percentage) or mean (standard deviation).

VP, ventriculoperitoneal; LP, lumboperitoneal; PVI, Periventricular hyperintensity; CIL, Chronic ischemic lesion; mRS, modified Rankin Scale.

We examined subjects in the shunt intervention group to compare ventriculoperitoneal shunts to lumboperitoneal shunts using the Mann-Whitney U-test.