Dural Leak: Is It Deterrent to Outcomes in Spine Surgery?: 10 Years Retrospective Analysis of Incidence, Management Protocol, and Surgical Outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case-control study. OBJECTIVES: To review the incidence of dural leaks, evaluate the efficacy of primary closure of durotomy and to study its effect on clinical outcome. The secondary aim is to classify the dural leaks and proposing a treatment algorithm for dural leaks. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Dural leaks are described as one of the fearful complications in spine surgery. Literature evaluating the actual incidence, ideal treatment protocol, efficacy of primary repair techniques and its effects on long-term surgical outcomes are scanty. METHODS: It was a retrospective analysis of 5390 consecutively operated spine cases over a period of 10 years. All cases were divided into two groups-study group (with dural leak-255) and control group (without dural leak-5135). Dural leaks were managed with the proposed treatment algorithm. Blood loss, surgical time, hospital stay, time for return to mobilization, pain free status, and clinical outcome score (ODI, VAS, NDI, and Wang criteria) were assessed in both groups at regular intervals. The statistical comparison between two groups was established with chi-square and t-tests. RESULTS: The overall incidence of dural leaks was 4.73% with highest incidence in revision cases (27.61%). There was significant difference noted in mean surgical blood loss (P 0.001), mean hospital stay (P 0.001), time to achieve pain-free status after surgery, and return to mobilization between two groups. However, no significant difference was noted in operative time (P 0.372) and clinical outcome scores at final follow-up between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Primary closure should be undertaken in all amenable major dural leak cases. Dural leaks managed as proposed by the author's treatment algorithm have shown a comparable clinical outcome as in patients without dural leaks. Dural leak is a friendly adverse event that does not prove a deterrent to long-term clinical outcome in spine surgeries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

Incidental Durotomy During Endoscopic Stenosis Lumbar Decompression: Incidence, Classification, and Proposed Management Strategies.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to review the types of incidental durotomies (IDs) that occurred during the endoscopic stenosis lumbar decompression through interlaminar approach (ESLD) and discuss the management strategies according to our classification. METHODS: A retrospective evaluation was performed for patients with spinal stenosis who underwent ESLD. Out of 330 patients, 27 patients of ID were clinically evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively on the basis of a visual analog scale score, Oswestry Disability Index, and MacNab's criteria. ID patterns are classified according to the size, location, and involvement of neural elements. Intraoperative and postoperative surgical management was evaluated. RESULTS: Intraoperative incidence of ID was 8.2%. According to lumbar levels, 11 (40.7%) occurred at L3-4, 12 (44.4%) at L4-5, and 4 (14.8%) at L5-S1 ID cases. IDs were divided into 4 types: 29.6% are type 1, 70% are type 2, 7.4% are type 3, and 3.7% are type 4. Overall for mean and standard deviation preoperative, 1 week postoperative, 3 months, and final follow-up for visual analog scale are 7.6 ± 1.4, 3.3 ± 1.1, 2.6 ± 1.1, and 1.9 ± 1.3, and for Oswestry Disability Index are 74.5 ± 9.0, 32.3 ± 9.4, 27.3 ± 7.2, and 24.4 ± 6.5 after patch blocking dura repair of ID. CONCLUSIONS: ID is a more common surgical complication in ESLD compared with the transforaminal approach. The endoscopic patch blocking dura repair technique should be considered in type 1 to type 3A of dura tear with good prognosis and clinical outcome. Consideration is made for conversion to open repair in types 3B, 3C and 4 dura tears with fair to poor outcome.

The True Effect of a Lumbar Dural Tear on Complications and Cost.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective database analysis. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to match risk factors for complications in patients who did and did not sustain a dural tear while undergoing posterior lumbar spine surgery and compare local and systemic complications. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Current data do not adequately define whether the event of sustaining an isolated dural tear increases the risk for postoperative complications while controlling for other confounding risk factors. METHODS: The PearlDiver Database was queried for patients who underwent posterior lumbar spine decompression and/or fusion for degenerative pathology. Patients with and without dural tears were 1:2 matched based on demographic variables and comorbidities. Complications, cost, length of stay (LOS), and readmission rates were analyzed. RESULTS: The 1:2 matched cohort included 9038 patients with a dural tear and 17,340 patients without a dural tear. All complications assessed were significantly higher in the dural tear group (P < 0.03). Venothromboembolic (VTE) events occurred in 1.3% of patients with a dural tear and 0.9% of patients without a dural tear (odds ratio [OR] 1.46, P < 0.0001). Meningitis occurred in 25 patients (0.3%) with a dural tear and eight patients (<0.1%) without a dural tear (OR 6.0, P < 0.0001). Patients with a dural tear had 120% higher medical costs, 200% greater LOS, and were two times more likely to be readmitted (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Sustaining a dural tear while undergoing posterior lumbar spinal decompression and/or fusion for degenerative pathology significantly increased the risk of complications and increased length of stay, risk of readmission, and overall 90-day hospital cost. Dural tears specifically increased the risk of a VTE complication by 1.46 times and meningitis by six times; these are important complications to have a high degree of suspicion for in the setting of durotomy, as they can lead to significant morbidity for the patient. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Orthopedic versus Neurosurgery-Understanding 90-Day Complications and Costs in Patients Undergoing Elective 1-Level to 2-Level Posterior Lumbar Fusions by Different Specialties.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar fusions are routinely performed by either orthopedic or neurologic spine surgeons. Controversy still exists as to whether a provider's specialty (orthopedic vs. neurosurgery) influences outcomes. METHODS: The 2007-2015Q2 Humana Commercial Database was queried using Current Procedural Terminology codes (22612, 22614, 22630, 22632, 22633 and 22634) to identify patients undergoing elective 1-to-2 level posterior lumbar fusions (PLFs) with active enrollment up to 90 days after procedure. Ninety-day complication rates were calculated for the 2 specialties. The surgical and 90-day resource utilization costs for the 2 groups were compared, by studying average reimbursements for acute-care and post-acute-care categories. Ninety-day complications and costs were compared using multivariable logistic and linear regression analyses. RESULTS: A total of 10,509 patients (5523 orthopedic and 4986 neurosurgery) underwent an elective 1-to-2 level PLF during the period. With the exception of a significantly lower odds of wound complications (odds ratio, 0.81) and a higher odds of dural tears (odds ratio, 1.29) in elective PLFs performed by orthopedic surgeons, no statistically strong differences were seen in 90-day complication rates between the 2 groups. Total 90-day costs were also similar between orthopedic surgeons and neurosurgeons, with the only exception being that surgeon reimbursement was lower for orthopedic surgery versus neurosurgery ($1202 vs. $1372; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: It seems that a provider's specialty does not largely influence 90-day surgical outcomes and costs after elective PLFs. The results of the study promote the formation and acceptance of dual training pathways for entry into spine surgery.

Incidental Durotomy in Open Versus Tubular Revision Microdiscectomy: A Retrospective Controlled Study on Incidence, Management, and Outcome.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case-control study. OBJECTIVE: To compare the incidence, management, and outcome of incidental durotomy in revision microdiscectomy with open and minimal-access surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Incidental durotomy occurs with a variable incidence of 3%-27% in spine surgery. The highest rate occurs in revision microdiscectomy. The intraoperative and postoperative management of dural tears varies in the literature and the definite impact on clinical outcome has to be clarified. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of medical records of 135 patients who underwent revision microdiscectomy, divided into 2 subgroups: OPEN (n=82) versus minimal-access surgery (MINI, n=53). Occurrence of intraoperative dural tears, intraoperative and postoperative management of durotomy, and clinical outcomes, according to MacNab criteria, were retrospectively examined. Statistical comparisons for categorical values between groups were accomplished using the 2-tailed Fisher exact test. P-values <0.05 were considered to be statistically significant. RESULTS: The incidence of durotomy in group OPEN was 19.5% (n=16/82) and in group MINI 17.0% (n=9/53) (P=0.822). The majority of durotomies (23/25) were repaired with an absorbable fibrin sealant patch alone. Postoperative cerebrospinal fluid fistula occurred only in 1 case of the OPEN group and was treated with lumbar drainage without the need for a reoperation. Patients with durotomy of the MINI group tended to have better outcome compared with those of the OPEN group without being statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of durotomy and postoperative cerebrospinal fluid fistula in lumbar revision microdiscectomy does not significantly differ between minimal-access and standard open procedures. The application of a fibrin sealant patch alone is an effective strategy for dural repair in revision lumbar microdiscectomy.

Perifascial Areolar Tissue Graft for Spinal Dural Repair with Cerebrospinal Fluid Leakage: Case Report of Novel Graft Material, Radiological Assessment Technique, and Rare Postoperative Hydrocephalus.

BACKGROUND: Incidental durotomy is a relatively common complication in spinal surgeries, and treatment of persistent cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage is still challenging, especially in cases for which "watertight" suturing is inapplicable. The usefulness of a nonvascularized perifascial areolar tissue (PAT) graft recently was emphasized for plastic and skull base surgeries. Its hypervascularity allows for early engraftment and long-term survival, and its flexibility is advantageous in fixing defects of complex shapes in limited surgical spaces. CASE DESCRIPTION: The authors report a case of persistent CSF leakage after cervical spine surgery in which a PAT graft was used successfully for direct closure of the dural defect. The noninvasive, spin-labeled magnetic resonance imaging technique was used for postoperative assessment of CSF dynamics, not for CSF accumulation but for CSF leakage itself. In addition, some potential causes for the rare development of communicating hydrocephalus after cervical laminoplasty, as seen in this case, are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: PAT was used successfully as an alternative free graft material for direct spinal dural closure, and its hypervascularity seemed to assist with rapid resolution of CSF leakage in our case. Spin-labeled magnetic resonance imaging may enable assessment of spinal CSF dynamics without invasion.

The Economic Implications of an Incidental Durotomy.

STUDY DESIGN: Case-control. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the economic impact of an incidental durotomy in spine surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: An incidental durotomy during spine surgery does not affect long-term outcomes, but as reimbursement moves toward bundled payments, it may substantially affect the profitability of spine surgery. METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively collected morbidity and mortality database identified all patients with an incidental durotomy between January 1, 2012, and January 11, 2013. Subjects with a dural tear were matched to controls (1 : 2) without a dural tear, and the total charges for one year were collected. Controls were required to meet the following criteria: Age ±5 years; Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) ±1; Date of surgery ±2 years; Exact region of the spine, but not the exact level (i.e., lumbar → lumbar); Exact type of fusion (i.e., approach, instrumentation); Exact number of levels fused; Use of rhBMP-2; Number of levels decompressed ±1. RESULTS: Two controls without a dural tear could be identified for 57 patients who sustained an incidental durotomy. No difference in demographic data, emergency room visits, hospital readmissions, or revision surgeries between the groups was identified. Patients with an incidental durotomy had a longer operative time by 30.6 ±â€Š8.5 minutes (P < 0.01), longer length of stay by 0.89 ±â€Š0.27 days (P = 0.0001), and an increase in their average initial hospital charge by 18%. No increase in surgeon-based charges or hospital-based charges after the initial visit was identified. CONCLUSION: An incidental durotomy significantly increases the initial hospital charges for patients undergoing spine surgery; however, in this study it has no effect on surgeon-based charges or on hospital-based charges after discharge. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Health care costs of incidental durotomies and postoperative cerebrospinal fluid leaks after elective spinal surgery.

PURPOSE: To explore the additional health care costs of incidental durotomies and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leaks after elective surgery for degenerative spinal disorders. METHODS: Prospective, observational single-center study including all patients operated for a degenerative condition of the spine over a 13-month period. Incidental durotomies and cerebrospinal fluid leaks were registered prospectively and a detailed analysis of health care costs of each case was performed. RESULTS: In total 239 patients were included; an incidental durotomy occured in ten patients and a postoperative cerebrospinal fluid leak occured in one patient causing significantly higher hospital costs, as well as significantly longer hospital stay and operation time. While the hospital costs increased by nearly 50% the hospitals reimbursement increased only by 21% and this resulted in an average financial loss of 730 per case. CONCLUSION: Incidental durotomy or postoperative cerebrospinal fluid leak after elective surgery for degenerative spinal disorders causes significantly higher health care costs.

The incidence and management of inability to advance Arrow FlexTip Plus epidural catheters in obstetric patients.

BACKGROUND: Difficulty advancing epidural catheters is troublesome to obstetric anesthesiologists. Flexible epidural catheters have been shown to reduce paresthesiae and intravascular catheter placement in parturients, but the cause of inability to advance these catheters past the epidural needle tip remains undefined. Specifically, its incidence and effective management strategies have not been described. METHODS: All labor epidural catheters were recorded for a 22-week period. Difficulty advancing the epidural catheter was defined as an inability to advance the catheter beyond the needle tip after obtaining loss of resistance. Anesthesiologists completed a survey when difficulty advancing a catheter occurred. RESULTS: A total of 2148 epidural catheter placements were performed. There were 97 cases of an inability to advance the epidural catheter (4.5%, 95% CI 3.7 to 5.5%). This occurred in 4.2% of combined spinal-epidural and 4.6% of epidural placements (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.62). On a 0 to 10scale, the median [IQR] provider confidence in loss of resistance was 9 [8, 10]. A total of 230 corrective maneuvers were performed, using nine distinct approaches. The incidence of accidental dural puncture was 3.1% if an inability to advance occurred (n=97) compared to 1.2% for other placements (n=2051, P=0.12). DISCUSSION: Inability to advance Arrow FlexTip Plus® epidural catheters was relatively common (4.5%) and occurred despite confidence in obtaining loss of resistance. Injecting saline may be corrective and appears to have little disadvantage. However, removing the needle and performing a new placement was the most successful corrective maneuver.

Surgical dural tears: prevalence and updated management protocol based on 1359 lumbar vertebra interventions.

INTRODUCTION: The dural tear is a dreaded complication of lumbar surgery. HYPOTHESIS: Our management protocol has made it possible to deal with this problem effectively. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of 1359 patients operated between 2000 and 2010. In the event of dural tear, a therapeutic protocol was applied: suturing the dural wound if possible. A collagen patch lined with a layer of fibrin glue protected the suture. If the suture was considered tight, a non-aspirating drain was set up for 48h. In the other cases, no drain was set up. All the patients were left supine for 48h and they received intravenous antibiotics for the same duration. We analyzed the number and the type of breaches, the possibility of suturing, clinical symptoms (headache), and delayed complications (dural fistula or meningoceles). RESULTS: The 1359 procedures included 23 dural tear complications (1.7%). The tears were often small in size and reparable. There were no late complications detected: no symptomatic fistula or meningocele. None of the patients had a second surgery. DISCUSSION: This protocol provided effective management of dural tears in lumbar surgery, with no application problems. We suggest a number of improvements: the use of the Valsalva maneuver to test the suturing, a stand-up test for the patient, and a systematic late MRI to detect meningoceles. There is no reason to change the other points in the protocol: suturing, controlled drainage for watertight wounds, no drainage for the non-watertight wounds, antibiotics, and supine bed rest position 48h. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV. Retrospective study.

Incidental durotomy during spine surgery: incidence, management and complications. A retrospective review.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of a series of patients who underwent spinal surgery at a single spine unit during a 1 year period. OBJECTIVES: To assess the incidence, treatment, clinical consequence, complications of incidental durotomy during spine surgery and results of 37 months clinical follow-up. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Incidental durotomy is an underestimated and relatively adverse event during spinal surgery. Several consequences of inadequately treated dural tears have been reported. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted on 1326 consecutive patients who underwent spinal surgery performed in one French spine unit from January 2005 to December 2005. We excluded from this study patients treated for emergency spine cases. RESULTS: Fifty-one dural tears were identified (3.84%). Incidental durotomies were associated with anterior cervical approach in 1 case, with posterior cervical approach in 1 case, with anterior retroperitoneal approach in 1 case and with posterior thoracolumbar approach in 48 cases. In addition, any clinically significant durotomy unrecognised during surgical procedure were included. Thirteen patients presented postoperative complications including 7 cerebrospinal fluid leaks, 2 wound infections, 2 postoperative haematomas, and 2 pseudomeningoceles. Nine of these 13 patients required a revision procedure. A mean follow-up of 37 months showed good long-term clinical results. CONCLUSIONS: Incidental durotomy is a common complication of spine surgery. All incidental durotomies must be repaired primarily. Dural tears that were immediately recognised and treated accordingly did not lead to any significant sequelae at a mean follow-up of 37 months. However, long-term follow-up studies will be needed to confirm this finding. The risks associated with dural tears and cerebrospinal fluid leaks are serious and should be discussed with any patients undergoing spine surgery.

Adverse events in spine surgery in Sweden: a comparison of patient claims data and national quality register (Swespine) data .

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Our knowledge of complications and adverse events in spinal surgery is limited, especially concerning incidence and consequences. We therefore investigated adverse events in spine surgery in Sweden by comparing patient claims data from the County Councils' Mutual Insurance Company register with data from the National Swedish Spine Register (Swespine). METHODS: We analyzed patient claims (n = 182) to the insurance company after spine surgery performed between 2003 and 2005. The medical records of the patients filing these claims were reviewed and compared with Swespine data for the same period. RESULTS: Two-thirds (119/182, 65%) of patients who claimed economic compensation from the insurance company were registered in Swespine. Of the 210 complications associated with these 182 claims, only 74 were listed in Swespine. The most common causes of compensated injuries (n = 139) were dural lesions (n = 40) and wound infections (n = 30). Clinical outcome based on global assessment, leg pain, disability, and quality of health was worse for patients who claimed economic compensation than for the total group of Swespine patients. INTERPRETATION: We found considerable under-reporting of complications in Swespine. Dural lesions and infections were not well recorded, although they were important reasons for problems and contributed to high levels of disability. By analyzing data from more than one source, we obtained a better understanding of the patterns of adverse events and outcomes after spine surgery.

Higher risk of dural tears and recurrent herniation with lumbar micro-endoscopic discectomy.

Existing studies on micro-endoscopic lumbar discectomy report similar outcomes to those of open and microdiscectomy and conflicting results on complications. We designed a randomised controlled trial to investigate the hypothesis of different outcomes and complications obtainable with the three techniques. 240 patients aged 18-65 years affected by posterior lumbar disc herniation and symptoms lasting over 6 weeks of conservative management were randomised to micro-endoscopic (group 1), micro (group 2) or open (group 3) discectomy. Exclusion criteria were less than 6 weeks of pain duration, cauda equina compromise, foraminal or extra-foraminal herniations, spinal stenosis, malignancy, previous spinal surgery, spinal deformity, concurrent infection and rheumatic disease. Surgery and follow-up were made at a single Institution. A biomedical researcher independently collected and reviewed the data. ODI, back and leg VAS and SF-36 were the outcome measures used preoperatively, postoperatively and at 6-, 12- and 24-month follow-up. 212/240 (91%) patients completed the 24-month follow-up period. VAS back and leg, ODI and SF36 scores showed clinically and statistically significant improvements within groups without significant difference among groups throughout follow-up. Dural tears, root injuries and recurrent herniations were significantly more common in group 1. Wound infections were similar in group 2 and 3, but did not affect patients in group 1. Overall costs were significantly higher in group 1 and lower in group 3. In conclusion, outcome measures are equivalent 2 years following lumbar discectomy with micro-endoscopy, microscopy or open technique, but severe complications are more likely and costs higher with micro-endoscopy.

Cerebrospinal fluid leak during cervical corpectomy for ossified posterior longitudinal ligament: incidence, management, and outcome.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective. OBJECTIVE: To study the incidence of intraoperative cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak in patients with ossified posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL) undergoing central cervical corpectomy (CC) and to describe a reliable technique for treating the leak after CC. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The rate of dural tear after CC is higher in patients with OPLL compared to other causes of cervical spinal stenosis. Various techniques have been described to deal with dural tears with CSF leak in OPLL. We assessed the efficacy of the repair technique used to deal with this complication in our patients with OPLL who had undergone CC. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed of all patients diagnosed with OPLL (n = 144) who had undergone CC between July 1992 and June 2007 (15 years). The dural defect was repaired with an onlay graft of crushed muscle/fascia and a layer of gelatin sponge. Bed rest and a lumbar subarachnoid drain were used for 5 days after surgery. RESULTS: Intraoperative CSF leak was noted in 9 patients (6.3%). The dural defects ranged in size from a few mm to about 15 mm (10-75 mm). All patients had a successful repair with no patient requiring reoperation for the CSF leak. CONCLUSION: Intraoperative CSF leak was encountered in 6.3% of patients undergoing CC for OPLL. A successful repair was achieved using fascial graft, gelatin sponge, lumbar CSF drainage, and bed rest.

Incidental durotomy in lumbar spine surgery: incidence and management.

There is increasing awareness of the need to inform patients of common complications that occur during surgical procedures. During lumbar spine surgery, incidental tear of the dural sac and subsequent cerebrospinal fluid leak is possibly the most frequently occurring complication. There is no consensus in the literature about the rate of dural tears in spine surgery. We have undertaken this study to evaluate the incidence of dural tears among spine surgeons in the United Kingdom for commonly performed spinal procedures. Prospective data was gathered for 1,549 cases across 14 institutions in the United Kingdom. The results give us a baseline rate for the incidence of dural tears. The rate was 3.5% for primary discectomy, 8.5% for spinal stenosis surgery and 13.2% for revision discectomy. There was a wide variation in the actual and estimated rates of dural tears among the spine surgeons. The results confirm that prospective data collection by spine surgeons is the most efficient and accurate way to assess complication rates for spinal surgery.

Risk factors for spinal surgical-site infections in a community hospital: a case-control study.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize risk factors for surgical-site infection after spinal surgery. DESIGN: A case-control study. SETTING: A 113-bed community hospital. METHOD: From January 1998 through June 2000, the incidence of surgical-site infection in patients undergoing laminectomy, spinal fusion surgery, or both increased at community hospital A. We compared 13 patients who acquired surgical-site infections after laminectomy, spinal fusion surgery, or both with 47 patients who were operated on during the same time period but did not acquire a surgical-site infection. Information collected included demographics, risk factors, personnel involved in the operations, length of hospital stay, and hospital costs. RESULTS: Of 13 case-patients, 9 (69%) were obese, 9 (69%) had spinal compression, 5 (38.5%) had a history of tobacco use, and 4 (31%) had diabetes. Oxacillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (6 of 13; 46%) was the most common organism isolated. Significant risk factors for postoperative spinal surgical-site infection were dural tear during the surgical procedure and the use of glue to cement the dural patch (3 of 13 [23%] vs 1 of 47 [2.1%]; P = .02) and American Society of Anesthesiologists risk class of 3 or more (6 of 13 [46.2%] vs 7 of 47 [15%]; P = .02). Case-patients were more likely to have prolonged length of stay (median, 16 vs 4 days; P< .001). The average excess length of stay was 11 days and the excess cost per case was $12,477. CONCLUSION: Dural tear and the use of glue should be evaluated as potential risk factors for spinal surgical-site infection. Systematic observation for potential lapses in sterile technique and surgical processes that may increase the risk of infection may help prevent spinal surgical-site infection.