Table 3 Comparison of the treatment costs between the three groups (x ± s).

From: Modified ventriculoperitoneal shunt applied to temporary external ventricular drainage

 

N

Cost of operation (ten thousand, RMB)

P

Cost of nursing EVD (ten thousand, RMB)

P

Direct EVD

31

0.43 ± 0.06

P* < 0.01

0.11 ± 0.05

P1 < 0.05

P2 > 0.05

EVD via OR

54 (8)

0.65 ± 0.11

 

0.23 ± 0.10

 

mVPS

35 (6)

1.24 ± 0.16

 

0.21 ± 0.09

 

At least two or more operations

8 + 6 (14)

1.87 ± 0.33#

P& < 0.05

0.36 ± 0.13

P3 < 0.05

  1. #A total of 14 cases underwent two or more operations in the same case, of which 8 cases underwent EVD via Ommaya reservoir again after failure of the first Direct EVD, and 6 cases underwent mVPS again after EVD via Ommaya reservoir.
  2. *The comparison of treatment cost between mVPS and Direct EVD, mVPS and EVD via Ommaya reservoir was statistically significant (P < 0.01). & The cost of comparing mVPS and multiple operations was statistically significant (p < 0.05). The statistical significance of the external drainage nursing costs is assessed between Direct EVD and EVD via OR, Direct EVD and mVPS, and mVPS and multiple operations, denoted as P1, P2, and P3, respectively (P < 0.05).
Back to article page