Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Jul 24;11(7):e5224.
doi: 10.7759/cureus.5224.

Effectiveness of Method of Repair of Incidental Thoracic and Lumbar Durotomies: A Comparison of Direct Versus Indirect Repair

Affiliations

Effectiveness of Method of Repair of Incidental Thoracic and Lumbar Durotomies: A Comparison of Direct Versus Indirect Repair

James Brazdzionis et al. Cureus. .

Abstract

Introduction Incidental durotomy (ID) is a well-known complication in spine surgery. Surveys have not identified a consensus for repair method among neurosurgeons. IDs may lead to complications such as cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) fistula, which may predispose patients to infection, additional procedures, increased length of stay and morbidity. This study aims to compare durotomy repair methods with clinical outcomes. Methods The neurosurgery database at a single institution, Arrowhead Regional Medical Center, was screened for all patients who underwent thoracic and lumbar spine surgery from 2007-2017. Retrospective chart review of operative reports identified patients with an ID. Data collection included: length of stay, infection, additional procedures, time lying flat, CSF fistula formation (primary endpoint) with analysis using t-tests. Results A total of 384 patients underwent initial analysis. Of the 384 patients, 25 had an incidental durotomy based on operative reports. Four patients were excluded from this subset: two were repaired with muscle graft (low N), two were excluded for unclear repair method. The remaining 21 were stratified into two groups, those repaired directly with suture with or without adjunct (N=9) and those repaired indirectly with sealant (N=12). No patients developed a CSF fistula. The indirect group had a length of stay of six days, while the direct group had a length of stay of four days, p=0.184. Two of the nine patients in the direct group and two of the twelve patients in the indirect group developed an infection, p=0.586. Conclusion No patients developed CSF fistulas. Secondary endpoints of length of stay and infection rate did not differ. This study was unable to determine if direct versus indirect repair was a more effective repair method for ID. It is possible that if an incidental durotomy is identified and repaired with a water-tight seal, the repair method does not affect the outcome. It is up to the surgeon to individualize repair based on ability and circumstances.

Keywords: csf fistula; csf leak; durotomy; incidental durotomy; pseudomeningocele; repair.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

References

    1. Incidental durotomy after spinal surgery: a prospective study in an academic institution. McMahon P, Dididze M, Levi AD. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;17:30–36. - PubMed
    1. The intra- and postoperative management of accidental durotomy in lumbar spine surgery: results of a German survey. Clajus C, Stockhammer F, Rohde V. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2015;157:525–530. - PubMed
    1. Spinal dural repair: a Canadian questionnaire. Oitment C, Aref M, Almenawar S, Reddy K. Glob Spine J. 2018;8:359–364. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Incidental durotomy in lumbar spine surgery—a three-nation survey to evaluate its management. Gautschi OP, Stienen MN, Smoll NR, Corniola MV, Tessitore E, Schaller K. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2014;156:1813–1820. - PubMed
    1. A novel technique for prevention of subarachnoid-pleural fistula after incidental durotomy during transthoracic spinal surgery. He KD, Rymarczuk GN, Clark SW, Gillick JL, Vahedi P, Sharan AD. Oper Neurosurg. 2019;16:451–454. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources