Brazdzionis James, Ogunlade John, Elia Christopher, Wacker Margaret Rose, Menoni Rosalinda, Miulli Dan E
Neurosurgery, Riverside University Health System Medical Center, Moreno Valley, USA.
Neurosurgery, Arrowhead Regional Medical Center, Colton, USA.
Cureus. 2019 Jul 24;11(7):e5224. doi: 10.7759/cureus.5224.
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.
引言
术中意外硬脊膜切开(ID)是脊柱手术中一种常见的并发症。调查显示,神经外科医生对于修复方法尚未达成共识。ID可能会导致诸如脑脊液(CSF)漏等并发症,这可能使患者易发生感染、需要额外的手术、住院时间延长及发病率增加。本研究旨在比较硬脊膜切开修复方法与临床结局。
方法
对箭头区域医疗中心这一单一机构的神经外科数据库进行筛查,选取2007年至2017年期间接受胸腰椎手术的所有患者。通过对手术报告进行回顾性图表审查来确定发生ID的患者。数据收集包括:住院时间、感染情况、额外手术、平卧时间、脑脊液漏形成情况(主要终点),并使用t检验进行分析。
结果
共有384例患者接受了初步分析。在这384例患者中,根据手术报告有25例发生了术中意外硬脊膜切开。该亚组中有4例患者被排除:2例采用肌肉移植修复(样本量少),2例因修复方法不明确而被排除。其余21例患者被分为两组,一组直接用缝线修复(有或无辅助材料,N = 9),另一组用密封剂间接修复(N = 12)。没有患者发生脑脊液漏。间接修复组的住院时间为6天,而直接修复组的住院时间为4天,p = 0.184。直接修复组的9例患者中有2例发生感染,间接修复组的12例患者中有2例发生感染,p = 0.586。
结论
没有患者发生脑脊液漏。住院时间和感染率这些次要终点没有差异。本研究无法确定直接修复与间接修复哪种方法对ID更有效。如果术中发现意外硬脊膜切开并进行了水密性密封修复,那么修复方法可能不会影响结局。外科医生应根据自身能力和具体情况进行个体化修复。