Spine J. 2021 Jun 15:S1529-9430(21)00732-4. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2021.06.011. Online ahead of print.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Incidental durotomy during elective spine surgery is relatively common. While usually benign and self-limited, it can be associated with morbidity, increased cost, and medicolegal ramifications. Dural repair typically involves performing a primary closure using a suture or dural staple; repairs are then frequently augmented with a sealant, patch, or fat/fascial graft. Although primary repair of an incidental durotomy is standard practice, the ideal secondary sealant or augment choice remains unclear. A wide variety of commercially available dural sealant options exist, and while none have demonstrated consistent superiority, all are associated with single-use costs in the hundreds to thousands of dollars and have concerns regarding swelling, local inflammation, or short-lived dural adherence.
PURPOSE: The go al of this study is to compare the results of dural repair augmentation using an open intraoperative epidural blood patch to a hydrogel technique.
STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective comparative cohort study at an academic referral center PATIENT SAMPLE: Adult patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery from March 2017 to January 2021 who sustained an incidental durotomy. Patients undergoing surgery for infection were excluded.
OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was failure of the repair as determined by a return to the operating room for re-exploration of a persistent cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak within 30 days of the index procedure. A secondary outcome was the incidence of a postoperative positional headache, and if present, the method used to obtain resolution. The primary predictor was use of a suture and hydrogel technique ("hydrogel" group), or the use of an epidural blood patch ("EBP" group).
METHODS: The method for applying an open epidural blood patch i s presented in detail and involves primarily repairing the durotomy followed by allowing whole blood to pool and clot in the operative field until the durotomy is completely covered. This was compared with a group of patients undergoing secondary augmentation with commercially available hydrogel. In both groups, mechanical resistance to CSF leakage was confirmed with direct visualization and a Valsalva maneuver, respectively. Patients were instructed to remain flat until the morning after surgery. Chart review was used for data abstraction on preoperative, demographic, perioperative, and postoperative clinical factors. To compare between the hydrogel and EBP group, Wilcoxon rank-sum testing was used to test for non-parametric comparisons of means, and chi-square testing between binomial data.
RESULTS: Of 732 patients during the study period, forty-eight patients met study criteria. Twenty-five patients were in the hydrogel group and 23 in the EBP group. Mean age was 69.3 years (standard error 1.3 years). Patients were predominantly female (n = 31, 64.6%) with a mean BMI of 29.5 (SE 0.8), with no significant baseline differences between the hydrogel and EBP groups. Two patients in the hydrogel group (8.0%) and two in the EBP group (8.7%) had mild positional headaches postoperatively that resolved without intervention within 24 hours. One (4.3%) patient in the EBP group had positional headaches following an initial headache-free period; this patient was returned to the operating room and no evidence of a persistent CSF leak was found despite meticulous exploration.
CONCLUSIONS: An open, intraoperatively placed epidural blood patch may be an efficacious and cost-effective way to manage an incidental durotomy. This method merits further study as an allergy-free, no swell, cost-neutral method of dural repair augmentation.
PMID:34144204 | DOI:10.1016/j.spinee.2021.06.011
No comments:
Post a Comment