Clinical Experience with Hemopatch® as a Dural Sealant in Cranial Neurosurgery.

dura substitute dural sealant hemopatch

Journal

Cureus
ISSN: 2168-8184
Titre abrégé: Cureus
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101596737

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
04 Feb 2019
Historique:
entrez: 20 4 2019
pubmed: 20 4 2019
medline: 20 4 2019
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Herein, we report our clinical experience with the novel polyethylene glycol-covered matrix dural onlay, Hemopatch® (Baxter Deutschland GmbH, Unterschleißheim, Germany) for the prevention of postoperative cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) fistulas. Retrospectively, 22 consecutive patients (11 females, 11 males, mean age: 49.8 years, range: 15-77 years) with oncological and vascular intracranial lesions were included in this study. In all patients, the Hemopatch was applied as the dural onlay. The accuracy of the primary dural sutures was distinguished into 1) no visible gaps, 2) small gaps < 3 mm, and 3) large gaps > 3 mm. We evaluated the patient charts, surgical reports, and postoperative images. The median follow-up was three months. We recorded any wound healing disorder, such as infection or CSF fistula, and postoperative hemorrhage resulting in surgical revision. Supratentorial, infratentorial, and transsphenoidal approaches were conducted in 17, four, and one patient, respectively. Accurate sutures without visible gaps, small gaps, and large gaps were covered with the Hemopatch in 11, eight, and three patients. One patient developed a CSF fistula (4.5%), one patient had a wound infection (4.5%), and in one patient, a remote cerebellar hemorrhage occurred (unrelated to the dural closure) (4.5%). Thus, the surgical revision rate due to wound healing disorders was 9% (2/22). It is safe and feasible to use the Hemopatch as a dural sealant. The rate of postoperative wound healing disorders in our population was in the lower range of reported surgical revision rates after supra-/infratentorial craniotomies. However, prospective and controlled clinical trials are still warranted.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Herein, we report our clinical experience with the novel polyethylene glycol-covered matrix dural onlay, Hemopatch® (Baxter Deutschland GmbH, Unterschleißheim, Germany) for the prevention of postoperative cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) fistulas.
METHODS METHODS
Retrospectively, 22 consecutive patients (11 females, 11 males, mean age: 49.8 years, range: 15-77 years) with oncological and vascular intracranial lesions were included in this study. In all patients, the Hemopatch was applied as the dural onlay. The accuracy of the primary dural sutures was distinguished into 1) no visible gaps, 2) small gaps < 3 mm, and 3) large gaps > 3 mm. We evaluated the patient charts, surgical reports, and postoperative images. The median follow-up was three months. We recorded any wound healing disorder, such as infection or CSF fistula, and postoperative hemorrhage resulting in surgical revision.
RESULTS RESULTS
Supratentorial, infratentorial, and transsphenoidal approaches were conducted in 17, four, and one patient, respectively. Accurate sutures without visible gaps, small gaps, and large gaps were covered with the Hemopatch in 11, eight, and three patients. One patient developed a CSF fistula (4.5%), one patient had a wound infection (4.5%), and in one patient, a remote cerebellar hemorrhage occurred (unrelated to the dural closure) (4.5%). Thus, the surgical revision rate due to wound healing disorders was 9% (2/22).
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
It is safe and feasible to use the Hemopatch as a dural sealant. The rate of postoperative wound healing disorders in our population was in the lower range of reported surgical revision rates after supra-/infratentorial craniotomies. However, prospective and controlled clinical trials are still warranted.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31001467
doi: 10.7759/cureus.4013
pmc: PMC6450590
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

e4013

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors have declared financial relationships, which are detailed in the next section.

Références

J Clin Neurosci. 2003 Nov;10(6):661-4
pubmed: 14592612
Laryngoscope. 2004 Mar;114(3):501-5
pubmed: 15091225
Surg Neurol. 2005 Dec;64(6):490-3, discussion 493-4
pubmed: 16293457
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2011 Oct;145(4):689-93
pubmed: 21659496
Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2014 Aug;123:50-4
pubmed: 25012011
J Neurosurg. 2014 Sep;121(3):735-44
pubmed: 25036199
Surg Technol Int. 2014 Nov;25:29-35
pubmed: 25433173
Med Devices (Auckl). 2015 Dec 22;9:1-10
pubmed: 26730213
Surg Technol Int. 2016 Apr;28:19-28
pubmed: 27042779
Surg Technol Int. 2016 Jul 29;XXIX:
pubmed: 27466878
Neurosurgery. 2018 Mar 1;82(3):397-406
pubmed: 28575349
Am J Infect Control. 2017 Nov 1;45(11):e123-e134
pubmed: 28751035
J Med Econ. 2018 Mar;21(3):273-281
pubmed: 29096598
World Neurosurg. 2018 Oct;118:368-376.e1
pubmed: 29969744
Neurosurgery. 1997 Apr;40(4):684-94; discussion 694-5
pubmed: 9092841

Auteurs

Karl-Michael Schebesch (KM)

Department of Neurosurgery, University Medical Centre of Regensburg, Regensburg, DEU.

Alexander Brawanski (A)

Department of Neurosurgery, University Medical Centre of Regensburg, Regensburg, DEU.

Classifications MeSH