Kamenova Maria, Leu Severina, Mariani Luigi, Schaeren Stefan, Soleman Jehuda
Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital of Basel, Basel, Switzerland; Department of Spine Surgery, University Hospital of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital of Basel, Basel, Switzerland; Department of Spine Surgery, University Hospital of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
World Neurosurg. 2016 Mar;87:455-62. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2015.11.045. Epub 2015 Dec 14.
Incidental durotomy (ID) during lumbar spine surgery is a frequent complication of growing clinical relevance as the number and complexity of spinal procedures increases. Yet, there is still a lack of guidelines for the treatment of ID with a large heterogeneity of established surgical techniques. The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of dural suturing in patients having ID during degenerative lumbar spine surgery, compared with other dural closure techniques.
Of 1173 consecutive patients undergoing degenerative lumbar spine surgery from July 2013 to March 2015, in 64 (5.4%) patients 69 (5.8%) IDs occurred. The patients were divided into 3 groups depending on the dural closure technique used: group A, sole dural suture (n = 12, 19%); group B, patch only (TachoSil and/or muscle and/or fat) (n = 22, 32%); group C, dural suture in combination with a patch (n = 34, 49%). The primary end point was revision surgery caused by complications of cerebrospinal fluid leakage after 6 weeks. The secondary end points were operation time and hospitalization time, as well as surgical morbidity.
The 3 groups showed no significant difference in rates of revision surgery (group A: n = 1, 1.4%; group B: n = 4, 5.8%; group C: n = 3; 4.3%; P = 0.5). Furthermore, no significant difference for hospitalization time, operation time, and clinical outcome was found. Extent of ID, American Society of Anesthesiology score, postoperative immobilization, and insertion of a drainage tube were not associated with higher rates of revision surgery. Applying suction once a drainage tube was placed was found to be a significant risk factor for revision surgery (P = 0.003). Furthermore, patients undergoing revision surgery had a significantly higher body mass index (33 kg/m(2) vs. 26.37 kg/m(2); P = 0.006; odds ratio 1.252; P = 0.004).
Based on our results, the dural closure technique after ID does not seem to influence revision surgery rates due to cerebrospinal fluid leakage and its complications. Further prospective randomized studies are needed to confirm our results.
随着脊柱手术数量的增加和复杂性的提高,腰椎手术中意外硬脊膜切开术(ID)成为一种临床相关性日益增加的常见并发症。然而,对于ID的治疗仍缺乏指南,现有手术技术存在很大异质性。本研究的目的是比较硬脊膜缝合与其他硬脊膜闭合技术在退行性腰椎手术中发生ID患者中的疗效。
在2013年7月至2015年3月连续接受退行性腰椎手术的1173例患者中,64例(5.4%)患者发生了69次(5.8%)ID。根据所使用的硬脊膜闭合技术,将患者分为3组:A组,单纯硬脊膜缝合(n = 12,19%);B组,仅使用补片(TachoSil和/或肌肉和/或脂肪)(n = 22,32%);C组,硬脊膜缝合联合补片(n = 34,49%)。主要终点是6周后因脑脊液漏并发症导致的翻修手术。次要终点是手术时间、住院时间以及手术并发症。
3组在翻修手术率方面无显著差异(A组:n = 1,1.4%;B组:n = 4,5.8%;C组:n = 3,4.3%;P = 0.5)。此外,在住院时间、手术时间和临床结局方面未发现显著差异。ID的范围、美国麻醉医师协会评分、术后固定以及引流管的插入与较高的翻修手术率无关。发现放置引流管后抽吸一次是翻修手术的一个显著危险因素(P = 0.003)。此外,接受翻修手术的患者体重指数显著更高(33kg/m² 对 26.37kg/m²;P = 0.006;比值比1.252;P = 0.004)。
根据我们的结果,ID后的硬脊膜闭合技术似乎不会影响因脑脊液漏及其并发症导致的翻修手术率。需要进一步的前瞻性随机研究来证实我们的结果。