Clinical neurology and neurosurgery · 2013
Autologous dural substitutes: a prospective study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sabatino Giovanni, Della Pepa Giuseppe Maria, Bianchi Federico, Capone Gennaro, Rigante Luigi, Albanese Alessio, Maira Giulio, Marchese Enrico
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Duraplasty can be performed both by means of autologous tissues (such as galea-pericranium, temporal muscle, fascia lata) or by commercially available dural patches. Nowadays many neurosurgeons consider galea-pericranium duraplasty time-consuming, technically demanding or not adequate, thus dural surrogates are increasingly popular. In this prospective research we compared duraplasty using autologous galea-pericranium vs. dural patches in terms of postoperative long term results, ease/time required and costs.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Research has been designed as prospective cohort study, that included 185 patients undergoing supratentorial elective neurosurgery with galea-pericranium or non-autologous duraplasty (minimum follow-up 12 months). Variables taken into account were: wound infection, CSF fistula, subcutaneous CSF collection, bone flap osteitis, brain abscess, empyema and tardive wound dehiscence (particularly after postoperative radiotherapy). Time for galea-pericranium collection, size of galea-pericranium harvest and dural defects were recorded in each case. Costs for non-autologous duroplasty were calculated.
RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were evident in long term postoperative results between the two groups. Mean time of galea-pericranium collection is less than 2min and enough galea-pericranium can be harvested in supratentorial approach to cover almost any dural defect. The only difference between the two groups is costs: an average of 268.7€/patient spent just for duraplasty. This figure is surely substantial if considered for the entire amount of surgeries performed in a department.
CONCLUSIONS: Considering that in our study long term results are equivalent, that galea-pericranium duraplasty is feasible and rapid, our indications are in favor of saving a considerable amount of money since an ideal autologous dural substitute is available and "free".
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Research has been designed as prospective cohort study, that included 185 patients undergoing supratentorial elective neurosurgery with galea-pericranium or non-autologous duraplasty (minimum follow-up 12 months). Variables taken into account were: wound infection, CSF fistula, subcutaneous CSF collection, bone flap osteitis, brain abscess, empyema and tardive wound dehiscence (particularly after postoperative radiotherapy). Time for galea-pericranium collection, size of galea-pericranium harvest and dural defects were recorded in each case. Costs for non-autologous duroplasty were calculated.
RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were evident in long term postoperative results between the two groups. Mean time of galea-pericranium collection is less than 2min and enough galea-pericranium can be harvested in supratentorial approach to cover almost any dural defect. The only difference between the two groups is costs: an average of 268.7€/patient spent just for duraplasty. This figure is surely substantial if considered for the entire amount of surgeries performed in a department.
CONCLUSIONS: Considering that in our study long term results are equivalent, that galea-pericranium duraplasty is feasible and rapid, our indications are in favor of saving a considerable amount of money since an ideal autologous dural substitute is available and "free".