Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T06:52:28.413Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Epidemiology and Direct Economic Impact of Hydrocephalus: A Community Based Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2015

Marc R. Del Bigio
Marc R. Del Bigio*
Affiliation:
Department of Pathology, University of Manitoba and the Health Sciences Centre, Winnipeg, Canada.
*
Department of Pathology, University of Manitoba, D212 - 770 Bannatyne Avenue, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3E 0W3
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Background:

The cost of care for hydrocephalic patients is not well established.

Methods:

This retrospective study for the years 1990-1996 analyzed the cost of surgical intervention and hospitalization of hydrocephalic patients in the community-based setting of Manitoba, Canada, with a stable population of 1.138 million.

Results:

The number of discharges with a primary diagnosis of hydrocephalus was greater than 200 annually. The mean duration of hospital stay was 12.4 to 21.9 days, depending on the etiology of hydrocephalus. Approximately 80 shunt procedures were performed annually. The total annual cost of care, excluding outpatient costs and chronic non-hospital based costs which could not be determined accurately, was estimated to be CDN$ 3.5 million in this community.

Conclusion:

Hydrocephalus is a chronic condition which puts substantial monetary demands on society and therefore deserves greater attention.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , February 1998 , pp. 123 - 126
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Neurological Sciences Federation 1998

References

REFERENCES

1.Rubin, RJ, Gold, WA, Kelley, DK, Sher, JP. The Cost of Disorders of the Brain. Washington DC: National Foundation for Brain Research / Lewin-ICF, 1992: 71.Google Scholar
2.Del Bigio, MR. Neuropathological changes caused by hydrocephalus. Acta Neuropathol 1993; 85: 573–585.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Foltz, EL, Shurtleff, DB. Five-year comparative study of hydrocephalus in children with and without operation (113 cases). J Neurosurg 1963; 20: 1064–1079.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Laurence, KM, Coates, S. Further thoughts on the natural history of hydrocephalus. Dev Med Child Neurol 1962; 4: 263–267.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Sorensen, PS, Jansen, EC, Gjerris, F. Motor disturbances in normalpressure hydrocephalus: special reference to stance and gait. Arch Neurol 1986;43:34–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Thompson, NM, Fletcher, JM, Chapieski, L, et al. Cognitive and motor abilities in preschool hydrocephalics. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 1991; 13:245–258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Dennis, M, Jacennik, B, Barnes, MA. The content and narrative discourse in children and adolescents after early-onset hydrocephalus and in normally developing age peers. Brain Language 1994; 46: 129–165.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Kaiser, G, Ruedeberg, A, Arnold, M. Endocrinological disorders in shunted hydrocephalus. Z Kinderchir 1989; 44 Suppl 1: 16–17.Google ScholarPubMed
9.Krauss, JK, Regal, JP, Droste, DW, et al. Movement disorders in adult hydrocephalus. Movement Disord 1997; 12: 53–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Vanneste, JAL . Three decades of normal pressure hydrocephalus: are we wiser now? J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1994; 57: 1021–1025.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.World Health Statistics Annual 1994. Geneva: World Health Organization,1995:Google Scholar
12.Epstein, F. How to keep shunts functioning, or “The Impossible Dream”. Clin Neurosurg 1985; 32: 608–631.Google ScholarPubMed
13.Sainte-Rose, C, Piatt, JH, Renier, D, et al. Mechanical complications of shunts. Pediatr Neurosurg 1992; 17: 2–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Lowry, RB, Thunem, NY, Anderson-Redick, S. Alberta congenital anomalies surveillance system. Can Med Assoc J 1989; 141: 1155–1159.Google ScholarPubMed
15.Wiswell, TE, Tuttle, DJ, Northam, RS, Simonds, GR. Major congenital neurologic malformations. A 17-year survey. Am J Dis Child 1990; 144:61–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Stein, SC, Schut, L. Hydrocephalus in myelomeningocele. Child’s Brain 1979;5:413–419.Google ScholarPubMed
17.Holt, PJ, Allan, WC. The natural history of ventricular dilatation in neonatal intraventricular hemorrhage and its therapeutic implications. Ann Neurol 1981; 10: 293–294.Google Scholar
18.Raimondi, AJ, Tomita, T. Hydrocephalus and infratentorial tumors. Incidence, clinical picture, and treatment. J Neurosurg 1981; 55: 174–182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Rantakallio, P, von Wendt, L. Risk factors in mental retardation. Arch Dis Child 1985; 60: 946–952.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Weytingh, MD, Bossuyt, PMM, Vancrevel, H. Reversible dementia: more than 10% or less than 1%? A quantitative review. J Neurol 1995;242:466–471.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Hoffman, HJ, Smith, MSM. The use of shunting devices for cerebrospinal fluid in Canada. Can J Neurol Sci 1986; 13: 81–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Bondurant, CP, Jimenez, DF. Epidemiology of cerebrospinal fluid shunting. Pediatr Neurosurg 1995; 23: 254–259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Miltenberg, D, Louw, DF, Sutherland, GR. Epidemiology of childhood brain tumors. Can J Neurol Sci 1996; 23: 118–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.Barlow, P, Ching, HS. An economic argument in favour of endoscopic third ventriculostomy as a treatment for obstructive hydrocephalus. Minim Invas Neurosurg 1997; 40: 37–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Cochrane, DD, Kestle, J, Steinbok, P, Evans, D, Heron, N. Model for the cost analysis of shunted hydrocephalic children. Pediatr Neurosurg 1995; 23: 14–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26.Munoz, E, Byun, H, Patel, P, et al. Surgonomics: the cost dynamics of craniotomy. Neurosurgery 1985; 18: 321–326.Google Scholar
27.Angle, CR, Trembath, EJ, Strond, WL. The myelodysplasia and hydrocephalus program in Nebraska: a 15 year review of costs and benefits. Part I. Nebr Med J 1977; 62: 359–361.Google ScholarPubMed
28.Angle, CR, Trembath, EJ, Strond, WL. The myelodysplasia and hydrocephalus program in Nebraska: a 15 year review of costs and benefits. Part II. Nebr Med J 1977; 62: 391–393.Google ScholarPubMed
29.Ireys, HT, Anderson, GF, Shaffer, TJ, Neff, JM. Expenditures for care of children with chronic illnesses enrolled in the Washington State Medicaid Program, fiscal year 1993. Pediatrics 1997; 100: 197–204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30.Asche, CV, Ho, E, Chan, B, Coyte, PC. Economic consequences of multiple sclerosis for Canadians. Acta Neurol Scand 1997; 95: 268–274.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed