Sin Anthony H, Caldito Gloria, Smith Donald, Rashidi Mahmoud, Willis Brian, Nanda Anil
Department of Neurosurgery and Biometry, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, Louisiana 71130-3932, USA.
J Neurosurg Spine. 2006 Sep;5(3):224-7. doi: 10.3171/spi.2006.5.3.224.
A dural tear resulting in a cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak is a well-known risk of lumbar spinal procedures. The authors hypothesized that the incidence of CSF leakage is higher in cases involving repeated operations and those in which the surgeon performing the surgery is less experienced; however, they postulated that the overall outcome of the patient would not be adversely affected by a dural tear.
An institutional review board-approved protocol at Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, was initiated in August 2003 to allow prospective comparison of data obtained in patients in whom a CSF leak occurred (Group A) and those in whom no CSF leak occurred (Group B) during lumbar surgery. Basic demographic information, descriptive findings regarding the tear, history of other surgeries, hospital length of stay (LOS), and immediate disposition at the time of discharge were compared between the two groups. Seventy-seven patients were eligible for this study. One patient refused to participate. In 12 (15.8%) of 76 patients CSF leakage developed. In three patients the presence of a tear was questioned, and the patients were clinically treated as if a tear were present. The patients in Group A were older than those in Group B (59.8 +/- 16.9 and 49.4 +/- 13.6 years of age, respectively; p = 0.02, Fisher exact test). In terms of those with a history of surgery, there was no significant difference between patients with and patients without a CSF leak (three [25%] of 12 patients [Group A] compared with 28 [43.8%] of 64 patients [Group B]; p = 0.34, two-sample t-test). In the 12 patients with dural tears, nine (75%) were caused by a resident-in-training, and the Kerrison punch was the instrument most often being used at the time (55%). This is significantly greater than 50% at the 5% level (p = 0.044, binomial test). The authors were able to repair the tear primarily with suture in all but one patient, whose tear was along the nerve root sleeve. In all cases fibrin glue and a muscle/fat graft were used to cover the tear, and all patients were assigned to bed rest from 24 to 48 hours after the operation. In Group A one patient required rehabilitation at discharge. The LOS in Group A was greater than that in Group B (median 5 days compared with 3 days), but no additional complication was noted.
The incidence of CSF leakage was 16% in 76 patients, and there were no other complications. Older patient age and higher level of the surgeon's training were factors contributing to the incidence, but the history of surgery was not.
硬脊膜撕裂导致脑脊液漏是腰椎手术中一种众所周知的风险。作者推测,在涉及重复手术以及手术医生经验较少的病例中,脑脊液漏的发生率更高;然而,他们假定硬脊膜撕裂不会对患者的总体预后产生不利影响。
2003年8月,路易斯安那州立大学健康科学中心什里夫波特分校启动了一项经机构审查委员会批准的方案,以便对腰椎手术期间发生脑脊液漏的患者(A组)和未发生脑脊液漏的患者(B组)所获得的数据进行前瞻性比较。比较了两组患者的基本人口统计学信息、关于撕裂的描述性发现、其他手术史、住院时间(LOS)以及出院时的即时处置情况。77名患者符合本研究条件。1名患者拒绝参与。在76名患者中有12名(15.8%)发生了脑脊液漏。3名患者的撕裂情况存疑,对这些患者按照存在撕裂进行了临床治疗。A组患者比B组患者年龄更大(分别为59.8±16.9岁和49.4±13.6岁;p = 0.02,Fisher精确检验)。就有手术史的患者而言,发生脑脊液漏的患者与未发生脑脊液漏的患者之间无显著差异(A组12名患者中有3名[25%],B组64名患者中有28名[43.8%];p = 0.34,两样本t检验)。在12例硬脊膜撕裂患者中,9例(75%)是由实习医生造成的,当时最常使用的器械是克里森咬骨钳(55%)。在5%的水平上,这显著高于50%(p = 0.044,二项式检验)。除1例患者的撕裂位于神经根袖外,作者能够用缝线对所有患者的撕裂进行一期修复。在所有病例中,均使用纤维蛋白胶和肌肉/脂肪移植物覆盖撕裂处,所有患者术后均需卧床休息24至48小时。A组有1例患者出院时需要康复治疗。A组的住院时间长于B组(中位数分别为5天和3天),但未发现其他并发症。
76例患者中脑脊液漏的发生率为16%,且无其他并发症。患者年龄较大和手术医生的培训水平较高是导致发生率的因素,但手术史不是。