Comparative analysis of dural reconstruction methods in open brain surgery for prevention of postoperative cerebrospinal fluid leakage

Abstract

Aim. A comparative evaluation of dural reconstruction results using different material: patient’s own tissues (periosteal fragments, m. temporalis fascia or fascia lata), dural graft implants, collagen matrix, as well as evaluation of adhesive compositions effect for dural sutures sealing. Methods. Results of different types of dural reconstruction used in 243 patients operated between 2009 and 2012 were analyzed. Additional materials were required to complete dural reconstruction in 91 cases. Three patient groups were formed depending on the type of plastic material: patient’s own tissues, artificial materials and collagen matrix without suture fixation. In first two groups, sutures fixed plastic material, adhesive compositions or collagen materials were used as sealant in some cases. Effect in postoperative cerebrospinal fluid leakage preventing was assessed for different plastic materials, as well as for additional dural sealants. Results. Cerebrospinal fluid leakage frequency was similar (p >0.05) regardless of the type of plactic material (patient’s own tissues, dural graft implants, collagen matrix) use and was assessed as 26.2, 29.0 and 27.8% accordingly. In subgroups where sutures between dura mater and graft were additionally strengthened by adhesive compositions or collagen stripes, cerebrospinal fluid leakage rate (23.3%) was lower (p <0.05) compared to subgroups without sealant (44.4%). Conclusion. The type of plastic material does not matter for effective cerebrospinal fluid leakage prevention. Additional sealing of recovered dura mater reduces the risk of postoperative cerebrospinal fluid leakage.

Keywords

dura mater / dural reconstruction / cerebrospinal fluid leakage / dural sealant

References

[1] Акобян О.Р., Шулев Ю.А., Трофимова Т.Н. МРТ-оценка эволюции свободного жирового аутотрансплантата, применяемого в хирургии основания черепа // Мед. визуализ. - 2005. - №3. - С. 21-28.

[2] Белоусов А.Е. Пластическая реконструктивная и эстетическая хирургия. - СПб.: Гиппократ, 1998. - 743 с.

[3] Тиглиев Г.С., Олюшин В.Е., Кондратьев А.Н. Внутричерепные менингиомы. - СПб.: Изд-во РНХИ им. проф. A.JI. Поленова, 2001. - 560 с.

[4] Barth M., Tuettenberg J., Thomé C. et al. Watertight dural closure: is it necessary? A prospective randomized trial in patients with supratentorial craniotomies // Neurosurgery. - 2008. - Vol. 63, N 4. - P. 352-358.

[5] Berjano R., Vinas F.C., Dujovny M. A review of dural substitutes used in neurosurgery // Crit. Rev. Neur. - 1999. - Vol. 9, N 4. - P. 217-222.

[6] Caroli E., Rocchi G., Salvati M., Delfini R. Duraplasty: our current experience // Surg. Neur. - 2004. - Vol. 61, N 1. - P. 55-59.

[7] Chappell E.T., Pare L., Salehpour M. et al. GORE PRECLUDE MVP dura substitute applied as a nonwatertight «underlay» graft for craniotomies: product and technique evaluation // Surg. Neur. - 2009. - Vol. 71, N 1. - P. 126-129.

[8] Moskowitz S.I., Liu J., Krishnaney A.A. Postoperative complications associated with dural substitutes in suboccipital craniotomies // Neurosurgery. - 2009. - Vol. 64, N 3. - P. 28-34.

[9] Narotam P.K., Qiao F., Nathoo N. Collagen matrix duraplasty for posterior fossa surgery: evaluation of surgical technique in 52 adult patients // J. Neur. - 2009. - Vol. 111, N 2. - P. 380-386.

[10] Narotam P.K., Reddy K., Fewer D. et al. Collagen matrix duraplasty for cranial and spinal surgery: a clinical and imaging study // J. Neur. - 2007. - Vol. 106, N 1. - P. 45-51.

[11] Protasoni M., Sangiorgi S., Cividini A. et al. The collagenic architecture of human dura mater // J. Neur. - 2011. - Vol. 114, N 6. - P. 1723-1730.

[12] Than K.D., Baird C.J., Olivi A. Polyethylene glycol hydrogel dural sealant may reduce incisional cerebrospinal fluid leak after posterior fossa surgery // Neurosurgery. - 2008. - Vol. 63, N 1. - P. 186-187.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Alekseev D.E., Alekseev E.D., Svistov D.V.