Skip to main content Skip to main navigation menu Skip to site footer

Agreement between assessor in using shunt algorithm for frontoethmoidal encephalocele with cerebrospinal fluid circulation disorder

  • Putu Ananta Wijaya Sabudi ,
  • Muhammad Reza Arifianto ,
  • Wihasto Suryaningtyas ,
  • Muhammad Arifin Parenrengi ,

Abstract

Introduction: Frontoethmoidal encephalocele (FEE) is a type of neural tube formation disorder. Hydrocephalus and intracranial cysts are the most common accompanying abnormalities in FEE. A high rate of shunt complications led to the development of the shunt algorithm for frontoethmoidal encephalocele (SAFE) to assess whether the shunt is needed.

Method: This was a cross-sectional study with 10 cases assessed using the SAFE algorithm. Each case was assessed by two assessors in three experience groups (neurosurgical residents who have passed the neuropediatric division, chief of neurological resident, and neurosurgeon) with a double-blind sampling method.

Results: The median age was ten months with 60% of the samples were female and 50% of the samples were not having shunt insertion, while 90% of the samples had FEE reconstruction. The agreement value with Fleiss Kappa showed low inter-rater agreement (κ = 0.037; 95% CI 0.035 to 0.039; p = 0.254) with moderate κ values of the six SAFE components where statistically significant for the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) accumulation (κ = 0.460; 95 % CI 0.456 to 0.463; p = 0.001) and the FEE volume (κ = 0.450; 95% CI 0.447 to 0.454; p = 0.001). Agreement value in shunt insertion was adequate, with a value of κ = 0.250 (95% CI 0.245 to 0.255), p = 0.002. The agreement value in patients who had shunts was moderate with a value of κ = 0.411 (95% CI 0.403 to 0.418 p = 0.000. The agreement value in patients who were not shunted was low with a value of κ = 0.089 (95% CI 0.082 to 0.97 p = 0.439.

Conclusion: The assessors' agreement using SAFE in FEE patients with circulatory CSF abnormality was low and not statistically significant. All components did not have an optimal agreement value. The components that were closest to the moderate agreement value were the CSF accumulation and FEE volume. Both of them were statistically significant.

Keywords: algorithm, frontoethmoidal encephalocele, shunt, shunt algorithm for frontoethmoidal encephalocele

References

  1. Arshad AR, Selvapragasam T. Frontoethmoidal encephalocele: Treatment and outcome. J Craniofac Surg. 2008; 19(1): 175 – 183. https://doi.org/10.1097/scs.0b013e3181534a77.
  2. Hoving EW. Nasal encephaloceles. Childs Nerv Syst. 2000; 16(10 – 11): 702 – 706. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003810000339.
  3. Thu A, Kyu H. Epidemiology of frontoethmoidal encephalomeningocoele in Burma. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1984; 38(2): 89 – 98. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.38.2.89.
  4. Heidekrueger PI, Thu M, Mühlbauer W, Holm-Mühlbauer C, Schucht P, Anderl H, et al. Safe and sustainable: The extracranial approach toward frontoethmoidal meningoencephalocele repair. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2017; 20(4): 334 – 340. https://doi.org/10.3171/2017.5.PEDS1762
  5. Holmes AD, Meara JG, Kolker AR, Rosenfeld JV, Klug GL. Frontoethmoidal encephaloceles: Reconstruction and refinements. J Craniofac Surg. 2001; 12(1): 6 – 18. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001665-200101000-0000
  6. Dhirawani RB, Gupta R, Pathak S, Lalwani G. Frontoethmoidal encephalocele: Case report and review on management. Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2014; 4(2): 195 – 7. https://doi.org/10.4103/2231-0746.147140.
  7. Arifin M, Suryaningtyas W, Bajamal AH. Frontoethmoidal encephalocele: clinical presentation, diagnosis, treatment, and complications in 400 cases. Childs Nerv Syst. 2018; 34(6): 1161 – 1168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-017-3716-3
  8. Bhandary M, Fujiwara K. Confidence interval estimation for intraclass correlation coefficient under unequal family sizes. J Mod Appl Stat Methods. 2009; 8(2): 520 – 525. https://doi.org/10.22237/jmasm/1257034500
  9. Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman & Hall / CRC; 1991. https://doi.org/10.1038/096483a0
  10. Hallgren K. Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: An overview and tutorial. Tutor Quant Methods Psychol. 2012; 8(1): 23 – 24.
  11. David DJ, Proudman TW. Cephaloceles: Classification, pathology, and management. World J Surg. 1989; 13(4): 349 – 357. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01660747.
  12. Hoving EW, Vermeij-Keers C. Frontoethmoidal encephaloceles, a study of their pathogenesis. Pediatr Neurosurg. 1997; 27(5): 246 – 256. https://doi.org/10.1159/000121262
  13. Ramdurg SK, Sukanya M, Maitra J. Pediatric encephaloceles: A series of 20 cases over a period of 3 years. J Pediatr Neurosci. 2015; 10(4): 317 – 320. https://doi.org/10.4103/1817-1745.174462.
  14. Marshall A-L, Setty P, Hnatiuk M, Pieper DR. Repair of frontoethmoidal encephalocele in the Philippines: An account of 30 cases between 2008 – 2013. World Neurosurg. 2017; 103: 19 – 27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2017.03.063.
  15. Jeyaraj P. Management of the frontoethmoidal encephalomeningocele. Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2018; 8(1): 56 – 60. https://doi.org/10.4103/ams.ams_11_18.
  16. Mahapatra AK, Suri A. Anterior encephaloceles: A study of 92 cases. Pediatr Neurosurg. 2002; 36(3): 113 – 118. https://doi.org/10.1159/000048365.
  17. Mahapatra AK, Agrawal D. Anterior encephaloceles: A series of 103 cases over 32 years. J Clin Neurosci. 2006; 13(5): 536 – 539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2005.05.016.
  18. Rathore YS, Sinha S, Mahapatra AK. Transsellar transsphenoidal encephalocele: A series of four cases. Neurol India. 2011; 59(2): 289 – 92. https://doi.org/10.4103/0028-3886.79157
  19. Mahapatra AK. Anterior encephalocele – AIIMS experience a series of 133 patients. J Pediatr Neurosci. 2011; 6(Suppl1): S27 – S30. https://doi.org/10.4103/1817-1745.85706
  20. McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic Importance of measuring interrater reliability. Biochem Medica. 2012; 22(3): 276 – 282.
  21. Tang W, Hu J, Zhang H, Wu P, He H. Kappa coefficient: A popular measure of rater agreement. Shanghai Arch Psychiatry. 2015; 27(1): 62 – 67. https://doi.org/10.11919/j.issn.1002-0829.215010.
  22. Hallgren KA. Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: An overview and tutorial. Tutor Quant Methods Psychol. 2012; 8(1): 23 – 34. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.08.1.p023.
  23. Sattler DN, McKnight PE, Naney L, Mathis R. Grant peer review: Improving inter-rater reliability with training. PLoS One. 2015; 10(6): e0130450. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0130450.
  24. Reiner BI, Siegel EL, Hooper FJ. Accuracy of interpretation of CT scans: Comparing PACS monitor displays and hard-copy images. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002; 179(6): 1407 – 1410. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.179.6.1791407.
  25. Jain A, Gupta P, Anand SPS, Dang A. Digital paper prints as replacement for LASER films: A study of intra-observer agreement for wrist radiographic findings in Rickets. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016; 10(8): TC11 – 14. https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2016/21057.8275.
  26. Krupinski EA. Current perspectives in medical image perception. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2010; 72(5): 1205 – 1217. https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.72.5.1205.

How to Cite

Sabudi, P. A. W., Arifianto, M. R., Suryaningtyas, W., & Arifin Parenrengi, M. (2021). Agreement between assessor in using shunt algorithm for frontoethmoidal encephalocele with cerebrospinal fluid circulation disorder. Indonesian Journal of Neurosurgery, 4(3). https://doi.org/10.15562/ijn.v4i3.151

HTML
182

Total
157

Share

Search Panel

Putu Ananta Wijaya Sabudi
Google Scholar
Pubmed
IJN Journal


Muhammad Reza Arifianto
Google Scholar
Pubmed
IJN Journal


Wihasto Suryaningtyas
Google Scholar
Pubmed
IJN Journal


Muhammad Arifin Parenrengi
Google Scholar
Pubmed
IJN Journal