Comparison of Transthecal Approach With Traditional Conservative Approach for Primary Closure After Incidental Durotomy in Anterior Lumbar Tear

• Published in: International journal of spine surgery Vol. 15; no. 3; pp. 429 - 435
• Main Authors: Shahmohammadi, Mohammadreza, Hajimohammadebrahim-Ketabforoush, Melika, Behnaz, Faranak, Keykhosravi, Ehsan, Zandpazandi, Sara
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Netherlands International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery 01-06-2021
• Subjects: Lumbar Spine; postsurgical complications; incidental durotomy; transthecal approach; CSF leakage
• ISSN: 2211-4599; 2211-4599
• DOI: 10.14444/8064

Incidental durotomies (IDs) are frequent complications of spinal surgeries which are mostly posterior or lateral. Anterior IDs are rare; however, they may lead to severe complications. We compared the transthecal approach with the conservative approach for primary closure after durotomy in anterior lumbar dural tear to assess the efficacy of these approaches to decrease postsurgical complications and clinical outcomes.
A total of 21 patients undergoing L2-S1 laminectomy with anterior ID were randomly divided into a transthecal group (n = 9) and a conservative group (n = 12) based on the surgical dural closure technique. Postoperative pseudomeningocele, wound infection, rootlet herniation, pneumocephalus, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage, headache, meningitis, in addition to surgery duration and length of hospitalization were examined and compared in both groups.
The frequency of pseudomeningocele and CSF leakage in patients undergoing the transthecal approach was significantly lower than those undergoing the conservative approach (
= .045 and .008, respectively). Furthermore, although the differences in the frequency of meningitis, pneumocephalus, headache, and wound infection were not statistically significant between the 2 groups, the effect sizes of the comparison were obtained as 49.4, 19.8, 7.1, and 2.6, respectively. This indicated that the differences were clinically significant between the 2 groups.
We found that the transthecal approach was significantly more successful in managing CSF leakage as well as its complications and clinical outcomes. However, further clinical trials with bigger sample sizes are needed to substantiate this claim.