Search

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 2 min 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”.

Introduction. Dural defects and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leaks are a common problem following posterior fossa surgery. The management includes either nonoperative management (e.g. external lumbar drainage) or surgical re-exploration. Objectives. We present our surgical, clinical and histopathological experience of dural closure in the posterior fossa. In order to avoid CSF leaks we developed a simple but effective and time-sparing method using a well-cut sheet of a vicryl-poly-pdioxanone mesh (Ethisorb®) covering the whole defect of the craniectomy. Additional fibrin glue or sealant is not necessary. Special attention was focused upon the frequency of postoperative complications, in particular infection rate and CSF leaks. Patients. 85 patients were treated with vicryl mesh as dural substitute after posterior fossa surgery due to distinct pathologies. An illustrative case is presented. Results. In none of the patients a postoperative infection was observed. Four patients presented postoperative CSF leakage and were treated by percutaneous lumbar drainage. Three of the patients improved completely, requiring no additional treatment. Only in one case defect covered by a vicryl mesh, a surgical reexploration became necessary. Conclusion. We consider the vicryl mesh (Ethisorb®) as an ideal dural substitute especially for the dural closure of the posterior fossa.

Background: This study compared the use of two commonly utilized dural closure techniques used in augmentation duraplasty for Chiari malformation I (CM I) and evaluated their efficacy and outcome in terms of quality of life assessments. Methods: This prospective randomized study compared sutureless (DuraGen) and suturable (Dura-Guard) techniques in CM I decompression. Clinical parameters, cost analysis, and SF-36 Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ) were utilized to assess outcome. Results: Thirty-four patients were enrolled. Average age was 38.7 ± 12.2 years (mean ± SD (Standard Deviation)) and 82% of patients were female. Sixteen patients received DuraGen and 18 Dura-Guard. Age and gender were similar among groups. Postoperative complications did not differ between groups. Operative cost and time were less for DuraGen, whereas hospital stay was less with Dura-Guard, neither was statistically significant. Average QLQ scores at months 1, 2, and 3 improved in both groups. Dura-Guard patients showed greater improvement in quality of life at month 2 (P < 0.05) but groups did not differ at final survey. All patient's physical health (P < 0.005) and function (P < 0.005) were significantly improved. Outcome did not differ between groups and all patients showed significant improvement (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Both techniques are effective in reaching the goals of decompressive surgery for CM I and did not differ in quality of life at final survey. All patients showed significant improvement in physical function, physical health, and outcome following surgery. With all variables being equal the choice of duraplasty material may be based upon surgeon's preference.

During the last 10 years, 41 patients with dural tear caused by anterior cranial fossa bone fracture were treated surgically. Those treated conservatively were not included in this series. The patients' mean age was 36 years. The average time of postoperative observation was 15 months. Traffic accidents, as well as wounds caused by missiles (shell fragments or bullets), blows, and fall were the mechanisms of injury. An autogenous graft, followed by homologous (lyodura) and most recently by heterologous (lyoplant ; B. Braun Melsungen AG, Melsungen, Germany) implants, was used to repair the dural lacerations. Fibrin adhesive was used to seal the sutures inserted between graft and dural defect margins in a majority of cases. The following criteria are required for the best dural substitute: uncontaminated tissue, histologic similarity to the local dura mater, adaptability, quick rehidratation, waterproof closure and the dural margins fast healing, and tensile strength easily resisting cerebrospinal fluid pressurization in physiological and pathological conditions. To define the effects of different tissue that could meet the above- mentioned criteria, we have undertaken a mechanical testing of the dural substitutes' tensile strength followed by histologic examination, and comparison with the dura mater of the anterior fossa region. Finally, we have paid particular attention to the clinical results of these substitutes.