A dural tear is a common iatrogenic complication of spinal surgery associated with a several post-operative adverse events. Despite their common occurrence, guidelines on how best to repair the defect remain unclear. This study uses five post-operative outcomes to the compare repair methods used to treat 106 dural tears to determine which method is clinically favourable.
Methods
Data were retrospectively collected from Southampton General Hospital’s online databases. 106 tears were identified and grouped per repair method. MANOVA was used to compare the following five outcomes: Length of stay, numbers of further admissions or revision surgeries, length of additional admissions, post-operative infection rate and dural tear associated neurological symptoms. Sub-analysis was conducted on patient demographics, primary vs non-primary closure and type of patch. Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was calculated via the Delphi procedure.
Results
Age had a significant impact on patient outcomes and BMI displayed positive correlation with three-fifth of the predefined outcome measures. No significant difference was observed between repair groups; however, primary closure ± a patch achieved an MCID percentage improvement with regards to length of original stay, rate of additional admissions/surgeries and post-operative infection rate. Artificial over autologous patches resulted in shorter hospital stays, fewer readmissions, infections and neurological symptoms.
Conclusion
This study reports primary closure ± dural patch as the most efficient repair method with regards to the five reported outcomes. This study provides limited evidence in favour of artificial over autologous patches and recommends that dural patches be used in conjunction with primary closure.
Level of evidence I
Diagnostic: individual cross-sectional studies with consistently applied reference standard and blinding.
Hinweise
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Introduction
A dural tear, also known as an incidental durotomy, refers to when the outer most layer of the meninges, the dura mater, is torn [1]. Dural tears most commonly occur as a complication of spinal surgery and patients who sustain a dural tear often recover well and do not commonly require further intervention following repair of the defect [2, 3]. However, patients may complain of low-pressure headaches, photophobia and nausea [1, 4, 5]. More serious consequences of poorly managed tears include meningitis, arachnoiditis and the development of pseudomeningoceles [1, 4, 5]. Therefore, further research to better define the management of dural tears may have beneficial clinical outcomes.
Despite the common occurrence of this complication, there are currently no definitive guidelines on how to best to manage an intraoperative tear [4]. Consequently, patient outcomes vary on a case by case basis [4]. This may be in part due to the inconsistent and varied methods of repair that surgeons use along with the absence of high quality comparative data [4, 6].
Anzeige
This retrospective study identifies 106 patients who sustained an intraoperative dural tear in Southampton University General Hospital, in either the Orthopaedic or Neurosurgery departments between 01/01/2016 and 04/11/2019. This study consequentially compares the method of dural repair against five primary outcome measures; length of hospital stay, length of additional admissions, numbers of further admissions or revision surgeries, post-operative infection rate and dural tear associated neurological symptoms. Sub-analysis was conducted regarding patient age and body mass index (BMI) as well as against primary vs non-primary closure and artificial vs autologous patches.
Methods
H1
With respect to the studies five predetermined outcome measures, primary closure is the most advantageous form of repair for intraoperative dural tears.
H0
With respect to the studies five predetermined outcome measures, primary closure is not the most advantageous method of dural tear repair.
Data were collected from Southampton General Hospital’s online ‘surgery complications’ ‘Charts’ and ‘E-documents’ databases. All patients with the terms ‘Dural Tear’, ‘CSF Leak’, ‘durotomy’ or ‘pseudomeningocele’ in their records were identified and later included in the study if it could be confirmed that they sustained an intraoperative dural tear from the Orthopaedics or Neurosurgery department between the 46-month period (Fig. 1). To ensure all relevant patients were included, the term ‘dural tear’ was entered into the main patient database search-bar and patients were cross-searched.
Fig1
Flow diagram outlining patient screening for study inclusion
×
Anzeige
The following patient information was recorded; age at the time of surgery, BMI, title of procedure in which the tear was sustained, length of original stay, character of dural complication, method of repair, post-operative neurological symptoms, infection rate, readmission date(s), readmission procedure(s), duration of readmission(s) (Table 1). Patients were grouped per the method of repair used so that no patient appeared in more than one group (Table 2).
Dysaesthesia in the perineal area and posterior aspect of both thighs and urinary urge sensation
None
0
0
102
Ortho
34
33.14
Lumbar decompression
8
Small dural tear
8.0 Nylon, Everseal and lumbar drain
Weaker erection than normal. Some sensory deficit
None
0
0
103
Ortho
64
31.46
L3/L4 and L4/L5 Lumbar Decompression
4
Pinprick dural tear at L4/L5
Duragen, Duraseal and lumbar drain
None
None
0
0
104
Ortho
49
35.11
L5/S1 discectomy and decompression of the right S1 nerve root
2
Pseudomenngocele noticed post-operatively
Not recorded
Continued pain
None
1
Dural tear repair
7
105
Ortho
66
25.06
L3/L4 L4/L5 /S1 fusion
7
Small intraoperative dural tear at L3 root
Duragen and duraseal
Struggle with quadriceps post-operatively
None
0
0
106
Ortho
38
38.52
L3/4 and L5/S1 decompression
4
Adherent dura at L3/4
6/0 Prolene and Duraseal
None
None
0
0
Patient data extracted from Southampton General Hospital databases. TILF—Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. ACDF—Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. PLIF—Posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Paddle SCS—Paddle spinal cord stimulation. VP shunt—Ventriculoperitoneal shunt
Table 2
Repair method grouping
Group number percentage
Number of patients (n)
Percentage of patients (%)
Primary closure alone
1
0.94
Primary closure and artificial patch
4
3.77
Primary closure and autologous patch
3
2.83
Primary closure and sealant
7
6.60
Primary closure and drain
1
0.94
Primary closure, sealant and drain
11
10.4
Primary closure, sealant and artificial patch
10
9.43
Primary closure, sealant, artificial patch and drain
10
9.43
Primary closure, sealant and autologous patch
6
5.66
Primary closure, sealant and autologous patch and drain
2
1.89
Primary closure, sealant, artificial patch and autologous patch
2
1.89
Primary closure, artificial patch and drain
2
1.89
Autologous patch and sealant
1
0.94
Autologous patch and drain
1
0.94
Sealant alone
9
8.49
Sealant and drain
3
2.83
Sealant and artificial patch
9
8.49
Sealant, artificial patch and drain
8
7.55
Sealant and autologous patch
1
0.94
Sealant, autologous patch and drain
2
1.89
Sealant, artificial patch and autologous patch
2
1.89
Artificial patch alone
2
1.89
Drain alone
4
3.77
Unknown
5
4.72
Total
106
100
Statistical analysis
All statistical analysis was conducted on SPSS (IBM Corp. Released 2019. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 26.0.). Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was calculated for the primary repair analysis and for the artificial vs autologous patch analysis. MCID was calculated via the Delphi method amongst resident neurosurgeons to enable a formal consensus to be developed.
Delphi procedure
Four resident neurosurgeons were provided with a two-round Delphi survey. In the first round, surgeons were provided with information regarding the study and independently suggested MCID values for each outcome. In the second round, surgeons were provided with the group ranges and medians and their own answers so they may adapt their decisions. 100% consensus was achieved following round two. Final answers were averaged to give an MCID for each outcome:
1. Length of hospital stay: ≤ 3 days.
2. Rate of readmissions or revision surgeries: < 2 readmissions or revision surgeries.
3. Length of additional admission(s): ≤ 7 days.
4. Infection rate: No infection present.
5. Neurological symptoms: ≤ 3-point score.
Benefit rate (patients surpassing MCID/total patients) was calculated for each MCID outcome and reported as a percentage improvement (benefit rate of intervention—benefit rate of the control) (Table 3).
Table 3
MCID percentage improvement analysis for artificial vs autologous patches in conjunction with primary closure
Category
length of original stay
Infection
Readmissions
Length of additional stays
Symptoms
Group 1: Artificial patch
Patient
5
0
0
0
4
Patient
4
0
0
0
1
Patient
5
0
0
0
0
Patient
7
0
0
0
3
Number passed MCID
4
4
4
4
3
Number not passed MCID
0
0
0
0
1
Benefit rate (number passed/total number)
100%
100%
100%
100%
75%
Group 2: Autologous patch
Patient
3
0
1
7
2
Patient
5
0
0
0
5
Patient
3
0
1
8
1
Number passed MCID
2
3
1
2
2
Number not passed MCID
1
0
2
1
1
Benefit rate (number passed/total number)
67%
100%
33%
67%
67%
Percentage improvement
33
0
67
33
8
Incidence rate
Descriptive statistics were used to identify the surgery and spinal level with the greatest incidence of tears.
Patient demographics
Two MANOVAs were conducted against BMI and age for the five outcomes. Patients were grouped into the following age categories: 1–10, 11–20, 21–30, 31–40, 41–50, 51–60, 61–70, 71–80 and 81–90. Patients were grouped into the following BMI categories: Underweight (16.00–18.49), healthy weight (18.50–24.99), overweight (25.00–29.99), moderately obese (30.00–34.99), severely obese (35.00–39.99), very seriously obese (40.00–44.99) and morbidly obese (45.00–49.99).
Type of repair method
Patients were grouped as per their repair method as shown in Table 2. Repair groups were compared via MANOVA of the five outcome measures. Neurological symptoms are scored as per Table 4.
Table 4
Scoring for neurological symptoms
Symptoms scoring 1
Symptoms scoring 2
Headache
Fistula formation
Nausea
Pseudomeningocele
Vomiting
Meningitis
Stiffness or tightness across the neck or back
Abscesses
Mild sensory disturbances
Arachnoiditis
Temporary loss of power
Severe shooting pain
Radicular pain
Sciatica
Dizziness
Bladder, bowel or sexual problems
Diplopia
Tinnitus
Fluid leak/collection
Vertigo
Primary ± patch vs non-primary ± patch
A MANOVA and series of independent samples t-tests were use against the five outcome measures between patients that received primary closure ± a patch vs non-primary closure ± a patch. MCID percentage improvement was calculated.
Artificial vs Autologous patches
Artificial patches and autologous patches in conjunction with primary closure were compared against each outcome via independent t-tests. MCID percentage improvement was calculated.
Results
A total of 106 patients sustained an intraoperative tear across the 46 months. Of the included patients, 51 (47.7%) belonged to the neurosurgery department and 55 (51.4%) belonged to Orthopaedics department.
Incidence rate
1,824 spinal operations were identified in the date range, giving an incidence rate of 5.81%. Of the 106 tears, 43.40% (46) were caused during L4/L5 operations and 72.64% (77) were caused during L3-S1 operations. 44% (47) of tears were elective surgeries, and 56% (59) were emergency surgeries.
Age
The average age was 55.3 (SD = 18.10, Min: 1, Max: 89). MANOVA analysis indicated that age has a statistically significant impact on the post-operative outcomes (F (40, 360.224) = 5.287, p < 0.000; Wilk’s Λ = 0.134, partial η2 = 0.331). Infection was most common in the 41–50 and 61–70 age group.
BMI
The average BMI was 30.54 (SD = 6.00, Min: 18.34, Max: 45.70). 60.71% of patients were overweight or moderately obese, and only 13.10% were of a healthy weight. BMI did not have a significant impact on post-operative outcomes, (F (25, 276.400) = 0.685, p = 0.870; Wilk’s Λ = 0.800, partial η2 = 0.44).
Readmissions and rate of revision surgeries were greatest in the moderately obese (M = 0.41, SD = 0.747) and severely obese (M = 0.64, SD = 1.082) categories. Infections were only present in the overweight (M = 0.12, SD = 0.332), moderately obese (M = 0.15, SD = 0.362) and severely obese (M = 0.14, SD = 0.363) and neurological symptom severity generally increased with BMI.
Type of repair method
Primary closure, sealant and a lumbar drain was the most common repair technique 10.4% (n = 11). Primary closure was used in 55.7% of cases (n = 59). However, combinations of sealants, patch’s, lumbar and subfascial drains without any form of primary closure were also commonly opted for (32.1% (n = 34)). Figure 2 illustrates the frequency of use of each method.
Fig. 2
Bar graph displaying dural tear repair methods used and the frequency of each methods use
×
Anzeige
Following MANOVA, no significant difference in the five outcomes was observed between all repair methods (F (105, 342.101) = 0.793, p = 0.921; Wilk’s Λ = 0.345, partial η2 = 0.192).
Primary ± a patch vs all other repair methods
When comparing primary closure ± a patch (n = 7) against all other forms of repair (n = 99), primary closure ± a patch scored better in 4/5 clinical outcomes:
1.
Length of original stay was over 3.5 days shorter (M = 4.57, SD = 1.40 vs M = 8.58, SD = 10.16, p > 0.05). 4% MCID percentage improvement.
2.
The rate of additional admissions/surgeries was almost half (M = 0.29, SD = 0.49 vs M = 0.41, SD = 0.805 p > 0.05). 27% MCID percentage improvement.
3.
Length of additional stays was on average 1.35 days less (M = 2.14, SD = 3.671 vs M = 3.45, SD = 11.43 p > 0.05). No MCID percentage improvement ( − 2%).
4.
Infection rate post-operatively was 0 for the primary repair ± patch group (M = 0.00, SD = 0.000) and 0.11 in all other treatment groups (M = 0.12, SD = 0.328, p > 0.05). 12% MCID percentage improvement.
5.
Severity of neurological symptoms was slightly greater in the primary repair ± patch group (M = 2.29, SD = 1.799 vs M = 1.78, SD = 1.59), this was reflected by an MCID of − 14%.
Following a MANOVA of primary closure ± a patch, no significant difference was observed (F (5, 89) = 0.559, p = 0.731; Wilk’s Λ = 0.97, partial η2 = 0.197).
Artificial vs autologous patches
When comparing artificial patches and autologous patches in conjunction with primary closure, no significant difference was seen in the length of original stay (M = 3.67, SD = 1.155 vs M = 5.25, SD = 1.258, p > 0.05).
Anzeige
No patient in the artificial group required further admission or surgery, however, two patients in the autologous group did (M = 0.00, SD = 0.000 vs M = 0.67, SD = 0.577, p > 0.05). This equated to a 67% MCID improvement. Due to no patients in the artificial patch group requiring further admission the artificial patch group had a 33% MCID improvement in the length of further admission(s) (M = 0.00, SD = 0.000 vs M = 5.00, SD = 4.359, p > 0.05).
No difference in infection rate between the two groups was observed as no patients in either groups sustained an infection (M0.00, SD = 0.00 and M = 0.00, SD = 0.00). However, the artificial group experienced less severe neurological symptoms post-operatively (M2.00, SD = 1.826 vs M = 2.67, SD = 2.08), with an 8% MCID improvement.
Discussion
An incidental durotomy refers to the intraoperative tearing of the outer most layer of the meninges [1]. The incidence rate of dural tears shows considerable inter-study variation dependent on the type of procedure, pathology and re-operative rate [7‐11]. Owing to the increasing complexity of spinal procedures the rate of dural tears is increasing and they continue to be a common surgical complication [8]. Our incidence rate of 5.81% falls within the reported range of 1–17% [12, 13] and supports the literature theme that such tears most commonly occur at the lumbar spine with 72.64% of the 106 tears occurring between L3-S1 [8].
Further to their common occurrence, dural tears are associated with a range of side effects including fistula formation, meningitis and more commonly orthostatic low-pressure headaches [10, 13, 14]. The most common side effects reported in this study were low-pressure headaches, stiffness across the back and CSF leak.
Anzeige
Despite these side effects, the long-term implications of incidental durotomies is disputed [15, 16] as is the most suitable method for repair. Whilst, primary repair is generally considered a suitable management strategy [10], some studies have concluded that it may not be essential for successful management [13, 17] whilst others report the contrary [10]. Equally, there is little comparative data regarding patient outcomes associated with combinations of repair methods and the repair combinations commonly opted for.
In this study, patients were grouped per their specific repair method and compared against the five clinical outcomes. Further analysis using the same outcomes were conducted on patient age, BMI and on the use of primary closure and type of dural patches used. Minimal clinically important difference was reported according to the Delphi method [18, 19]
Our study demonstrated that when considering these five outcomes, the age of a patient has a significant impact post-operatively. Based on previously published research and the patients included within this study, this finding was suspected to be a result of generalised increased morbidity due to prolonged hospital stay and poorer wound healing as well as more complex initial operative indications within the more elderly patients [20, 21]. Despite BMI not having a significant impact, the rate of readmissions, revision surgeries and infection rate increased with BMI. Complications associated with bariatric spinal patients are well documented [22‐24]; therefore, highlighting the significance that 60.71% of the patients were either overweight or moderately obese.
Primary closure, sealant and a lumbar drain was the most common repair method. However, despite primary closure being considered the gold standard [6, 10], it was only used in 55.7% of cases (n = 59). The sample size and grouping of patients resulted in each group containing a small number of patients which likely contributed to non-significant MANOVA results. However, the use of primary closure with or without a patch was shown to be superior in four out of the five of the outcomes. These data show that primary closure ± patch generates on average a shorter initial stay in hospital (4% MCID improvement), a reduced rate of readmission or need for additional surgeries (27% MCID improvement), a shorter readmission period (No MCID percentage improvement) and a lower infection rate (12% MCID percentage improvement). ‘Future research may benefit by comparing the outcomes in a homogenous patient sample between those who received no drain, a subfascial drain or a lumbar drain as part of their tear management. Each type drain cannot be considered as equal and therefore an inter-drain outcome comparisons should be made’.
In recent years, synthetic patches such as a collagen matrix or gelatin sponge have received US Food and Drug Administration approval for use in the repair of a dural tears. This approval provided a growing alternative to the more traditionally used autologous fat, muscle and fascia based patches [25]. Previously opted for autologous patches have reported success rates as low as 70% when performed within 24 h of a dural tear [26] and speculative evidence suggests that artificial patches may be better suited to adapt to all defects as they are more readily available, can be cut to shape and may achieve watertight closure in a possibly shorter operative time [25, 27]. Additionally, artificial grafts may display further benefits through their chemotactic interaction with dural fibroblasts [28]. However, there is little direct research between artificial and autologous patches and consequentially no consensus on which material is best.
Within this study, when comparing artificial and autologous patches in conjunction with primary closure, artificial patches resulted in shorter hospital admission (33% MCID percentage improvement), lower rates of readmission/need for revision surgeries (67% MCID percentage improvement) and shorter length of additional stays (33% MCID percentage improvement) as well as less severe neurological symptoms post-operatively (8% MCID percentage improvement). This is contrary to the results of Sabatino G, et al. [29] and Abla AA, et al. [30] who both reported no difference when comparing autologous and non-autologous grafts.
Conclusions
This study reports an incidental durotomy rate of 5.81% in a total of 106 patients from Southampton General Hospital’s Neurosurgical and Orthopaedics departments. In accordance with the current literature, 72.64% were sustained at the L3-S1 spinal level.
In this study, age was shown to have a significant impact on post-operative outcomes and BMI displayed positive correlation with the rate of readmissions, revision surgeries and post-operative infection. No significant difference was observed between repair groups; however, primary closure ± a patch scored better in 4/5 clinical outcomes when compared to other forms of repair.
The use of primary closure, a sealant and a lumbar drain was the most commonly opted for repair method and primary was used in only 55.7% of cases. Further analysis showed that artificial patches in conjunction with primary closure achieved lower rates of readmission/need for revision surgery and shorter length of additional hospital stays as well as less severe neurological symptoms post-operatively than autologous patches.
This study highlights the importance of age and BMI on post-operative dural tear outcomes and supports the use of primary closure ± a patch. This study also provides limited evidence in favour of artificial over autologous patches and recommends that dural patches always be used in conjunction with primary closure.
Limitations
The limited data that could be obtained retrospectively restricted analysis to only five outcomes and the small sample size and patient grouping resulted in several groups containing a limited numbers of patients. The study analysis was also dependent on the accuracy of operative notes. Primary limitations of this study therefore include its retrospective method of data acquisition, small sample size, considerable patient and operative heterogenicity and reliance on the accuracy of operative procedural notes. It is important to note that clinical heterogenicity arose from differing preoperative diagnoses, type of procedure, duration of follow up and method of wound closure which due to insufficient data are unreported in this study. However, despite these causes of heterogenicity, the authors believe that the present study adequately addresses its primary aim of comparing all current methods of iatrogenic dural tear repair surgery across a variety of clinical scenarios and operative indications. This study should therefore serve as a generalizable and more widely applicable attempt to evaluate the most effective dural tear repair method in a boarder operative context. Future research should further define individual patient populations to subsequently eliminate causes of clinical heterogenicity. However, such studies must follow prior nonexclusive research.
Finally, it cannot be certain as to whether the reported neurological deficits in the study were the consequence of the dural tear or the primary surgical procedure. Despite these limitations, the authors believe that this study provides an important overall and generalised evaluation of dural tear repair methods and raises several questions on a clinically and scientifically important topic of spinal surgery.
Declarations
Conflict of interests
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.
Ethical approval
Ethical approval was waived by the local Ethics Committee of The University of Southampton in view of the retrospective nature of the study and all the procedures being performed were routine care.
Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Mit e.Med Orthopädie & Unfallchirurgie erhalten Sie Zugang zu CME-Fortbildungen der Fachgebiete, den Premium-Inhalten der dazugehörigen Fachzeitschriften, inklusive einer gedruckten Zeitschrift Ihrer Wahl.
Zur Zementierung einer Knie-TEP wird in Deutschland zu über 98% Knochenzement verwendet, der mit einem Antibiotikum beladen ist. Ob er wirklich besser ist als Zement ohne Antibiotikum, kann laut Registerdaten bezweifelt werden.
In der Notaufnahme wird die Chance, Opfer von häuslicher Gewalt zu identifizieren, von Orthopäden und Orthopädinnen offenbar zu wenig genutzt. Darauf deuten die Ergebnisse einer Fragebogenstudie an der Sahlgrenska-Universität in Schweden hin.
Darüber reden und aus Fehlern lernen, sollte das Motto in der Medizin lauten. Und zwar nicht nur im Sinne der Patientensicherheit. Eine negative Fehlerkultur kann auch die Behandelnden ernsthaft krank machen, warnt Prof. Dr. Reinhard Strametz. Ein Plädoyer und ein Leitfaden für den offenen Umgang mit kritischen Ereignissen in Medizin und Pflege.
Ein Frauenanteil von mindestens einem Drittel im ärztlichen Op.-Team war in einer großen retrospektiven Studie aus Kanada mit einer signifikanten Reduktion der postoperativen Morbidität assoziiert.
Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie
Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.
