BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Ventriculoperitoneal shunt (VPS) is usually the primary choice for cerebrospinal fluid shunting for most neurosurgeons, while ventriculoatrial shunt (VAS) is a second-line procedure because of historical complications. Remarkably, there is no robust evidence claiming the superiority of VPS over VAS. Thus, we aimed to compare both procedures through a meta-analysis. METHODS: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, the authors systematically searched the literature for articles comparing VAS with VPS. The included articles had to detail one of the following outcomes: revisions, infections, shunt-related mortality, or complications. In addition, the cohort for each shunt model had to encompass more than 4 patients. RESULTS: Of 1872 articles, 16 met our criteria, involving 4304 patients, with 1619 undergoing VAS and 2685 receiving VPS placement. Analysis of revision surgeries showed no significant difference between VAS and VPS (risk ratio [RR] = 1.10, 95% CI: 0.9-1.34; I ² = 84%, random effects). Regarding infections, the analysis also found no significant difference between the groups (RR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.36-1.25; I ² = 74%, random effects). There was no statistically significant disparity between both methods concerning shunt-related deaths (RR = 2.11, 95% CI: 0.68-6.60; I ² = 56%, random effects). Included studies after 2000 showed no VAS led to cardiopulmonary complications, and only 1 shunt-related death could be identified. CONCLUSION: Both methods show no significant differences in procedure revisions, infections, and shunt-related mortality. The literature is outdated, research in adults is lacking, and future randomized studies are crucial to understand the profile of VAS when comparing it with VPS. The final decision on which distal site for cerebrospinal shunting to use should be based on the patient's characteristics and the surgeon's expertise.

•The top three countries made up 56.7% of the total open-access (OA) contributions.•Low and lower-middle-income countries are less than 8% of the total OA publications.•There is a disparity in academic voice in the neurosurgical literature.•Disparities potentially affect neurosurgery practice and knowledge dissemination.

Adhesive arachnoiditis (AA) is a rare inflammatory and scar-forming disease with several etiologies that may lead to incapacitating sequelae if not managed early. Nevertheless, as the onset of symptoms varies from days to years, the etiology is not often discovered. The disease is characterized by adhesions disrupting the cerebrospinal fluid flow and causing encapsulation and atrophy of the nerve root. Therefore, a range of clinical features may be present, including urinary, gastroenterology, dermatologic, and neurologic. In terms of diagnosis, magnetic resonance imaging is the gold standard showing pseudocysts with adherent and narrow nerve roots toward the center of the dural sac or peripherally cluster and narrow nerve roots with empty thecal sac. Despite its sensitivity and specificity, the imaging findings are not often associated with clinical manifestations, requiring treatment being based on anamneses and clinical findings. Nowadays, AA can be managed with pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment, although none provides a completely satisfying result.