A short review on a complication of lumbar spine surgery: CSF leak

2015 ◽  
Vol 139 ◽  
pp. 248-251 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sajesh K. Menon ◽  
Chiazor U. Onyia
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Short Review ◽  
Csf Leak ◽  
Lumbar Spine Surgery

scholarly journals Intrathecal morphine in lumbar spine surgery: a novel injection technique

2015 ◽  
Vol 42 (S1) ◽  
pp. S49-S50
Author(s):  
GA Jewett ◽  
D Yavin ◽  
P Dhaliwal ◽  
T Whittaker ◽  
J Krupa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Dural Puncture ◽  
Intrathecal Morphine ◽  
Lumbar Fusion ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Csf Leak ◽  
Lumbar Spine Surgery ◽  
Injection Technique ◽  
Csf Leakage

Background: Intrathecal morphine (ITM) is an efficacious method of providing post-operative analgesia. Despite adoption in many surgical fields, ITM has yet to become a standard of care in lumbar spine surgery. This may in part be attributed to concerns over precipitating a cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak following dural puncture. Methods: The dural sac is penetrated obliquely at a 30° angle to prevent overlap of dural and arachnoid puncture sites. Oblique injection in instances of limited dural exposure is made possible by introducing a 60° bend to a standard 30-gauge needle. Participating spinal surgeons were provided with brief instructions outlining the injection technique. Adherence and complications were collected prospectively. Results: The technique was applied to 98 cases of elective lumbar fusion at our institution. Two cases (2.0%) of non-adherence followed pre-injection dural tear. 96 cases of oblique ITM injection resulted in no attributable instances of post-operative CSF leakage. Two cases (2.1%) of transient, self-limited CSF leakage immediately following ITM injection were observed without associated sequelae or requirement for further intervention. Conclusions: Oblique dural puncture is not associated with increased incidence of post-operative CSF leakage. This safe and reliable method of delivery of ITM should be routinely considered in lumbar spine surgery.

scholarly journals Incidence & Management of Delayed Cerebrospinal Fluid Leaks after Lumbar Spinal Surgery-Analysis of 10 Cases

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 221-227
Author(s):  
MUHAMMAD MUKHTAR KHAN ◽  
FAIQAFILZA KHAN ◽  
WASEEM DAD KHAN
Keyword(s):  
Cerebrospinal Fluid ◽  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Lumbar Disc ◽  
Bed Rest ◽  
Csf Leak ◽  
Lumbar Spine Surgery ◽  
Dural Defect ◽  
Degenerative Lumbar Spine ◽  
Csf Leaks

Objectives: Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leaks in degenerative lumbar spine surgery are common, however, delayed cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leaks are quite rare in neurosurgical practice. Literature regarding its incidence and management is scant.Our aim was to describe the incidence & management of delayed CSF leaks after degenerative lumbar spine surgery. Material & Methods: This was a prospective study where all patients operated for lumbar disc or stenosis, who presented with the delayed CSF leak (> 1 week postoperatively) without intraoperative record of incidental durotomy were included. Data was collected about demographics, diagnosis, operative detail, postoperative course & management issues. Results: Ten out of 1128 patients developed delayed CSF leaks (0.89%). Mean age at the time of diagnosis was 52.1 ± 6.9 years with 6 (60%) males & 4 (40%) female. The most common spinal level was L5-S1 (50%). Eighty percent (n = 8) patients underwent primary surgery while 20% (n = 2) were revisions. Clinical features were headaches (80%), dizziness (70%) and altered sensorium in 20%. Mean time of the leak was 17.3 ± 2.2 days. Two patients resolved with bed rest and compression dressing while the lumbar drain was placed in 80%. Three (30%) patients of the 8 needed open repair of the dural defect. Complications of the CSF leak included wound infection in 60%, and meningitis in one (10%) patient. There were no cases of neurologic deficit. One case eventually developed infective discitis.

scholarly journals Oblique Intrathecal Injection in Lumbar Spine Surgery: A Technical Note

2017 ◽  
Vol 44 (5) ◽  
pp. 514-517
Author(s):  
Gordon A.E. Jewett ◽  
Daniel Yavin ◽  
Perry Dhaliwal ◽  
Tara Whittaker ◽  
JoyAnne Krupa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Intrathecal Morphine ◽  
Single Case ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intrathecal Injection ◽  
Technical Note ◽  
Csf Leak ◽  
Lumbar Spine Surgery ◽  
Csf Leakage

AbstractObjectives: Intrathecal morphine (ITM) is an efficacious method of providing postoperative analgesia and reducing pain associated complications. Despite adoption in many surgical fields, ITM has yet to become a standard of care in lumbar spine surgery. Spine surgeons’ reticence to make use of the technique may in part be attributed to concerns of precipitating a cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak. Methods: Herein we describe a method for oblique intrathecal injection during lumbar spine surgery to minimize risk of CSF leak. The dural sac is penetrated obliquely at a 30° angle to offset dural and arachnoid puncture sites. Oblique injection in instances of limited dural exposure is made possible by introducing a 60° bend to a standard 30-gauge needle. Results: The technique was applied for injection of ITM or placebo in 104 cases of lumbar surgery in the setting of a randomized controlled trial. Injection was not performed in two cases (2/104, 1.9%) following preinjection dural tear. In the remaining 102 cases no instances of postoperative CSF leakage attributable to oblique intrathecal injection occurred. Three cases (3/102, 2.9%) of transient CSF leakage were observed immediately following intrathecal injection with no associated sequelae or requirement for postsurgical intervention. In two cases, the observed leak was repaired by sealing with fibrin glue, whereas in a single case the leak was self-limited requiring no intervention. Conclusions: Oblique dural puncture was not associated with increased incidence of postoperative CSF leakage. This safe and reliable method of delivery of ITM should therefore be routinely considered in lumbar spine surgery.

scholarly journals Posterior and postero-lateral incidental durotomy during lumbar spine surgery: primary repair versus augmented primary repair

2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mansour A. Makia ◽  
Ahmed Alawamry ◽  
Ahmad M. Elsharkawy
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Primary Repair ◽  
Csf Leak ◽  
Lumbar Spine Surgery ◽  
Blood Patch ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B ◽  
Incidental Durotomy

Abstract Background Incidental durotomy (ID) during lumbar spine surgery is a frequent complication of lumbar spine surgical procedures. Many surgical techniques were described in literature for repair of durotomy, however it is a matter of debate if one technique is a gold standard method of repair. Our study described two groups with posterior and postero-lateral ID that occurred during lumbar spine surgery: group A with 34 cases with a mean age of 49.85 years repaired by primary water tight closure using prolene or silk sutures, and group B with 34 cases with a mean age of 47.18 years treated with augmented primary repair (sutures augmented with a graft from lumbar fascia and tissue sealant "Fibrin glue"). Patients were evaluated for risk factors for durotomy, post-operative clinical outcome, and need for revision surgery. Results Eleven cases of group A and nine cases of group B had previous spine surgery. The dural tear was < 2 cm in 41.7% of group A and 83.3% of group B. Better outcome was achieved in 32 patients of group A and 30 patients of group B. Among our study cases 2 patients from group A and 4 patients from group B needed revision surgery due to CSF leak which failed to stop with conservative management and percutaneous blood patch. Conclusions Dural closure technique after ID does not seem to influence revision surgery rates due to cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage and its complications. Durotomies that were immediately recognized and treated did not lead to any significant consequences.

Double-blind, randomized controlled trial of tranexamic acid in minor lumbar spine surgery: no effect on operative time, intraoperative blood loss, or complications

2019 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 194-200 ◽  
Author(s):  
Signe Elmose ◽  
Mikkel Ø. Andersen ◽  
Else Bay Andresen ◽  
Leah Yacat Carreon
Keyword(s):  
Placebo Group ◽  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Tranexamic Acid ◽  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Decompressive Surgery ◽  
Lumbar Spine Surgery ◽  
Intraoperative Blood Loss ◽  
Double Blind

OBJECTIVEThe purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of tranexamic acid (TXA) compared to placebo in low-risk adult patients undergoing elective minor lumbar spine surgery—specifically with respect to operative time, estimated blood loss, and complications. Studies have shown that TXA reduces blood loss during major spine surgery. There have been no previous studies on the effect of TXA in minor lumbar spine surgery in which these variables have been evaluated.METHODSThe authors enrolled patients with ASA grades 1 to 2 scheduled to undergo lumbar decompressive surgery at Middelfart Hospital into a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. Patients with thromboembolic disease, coagulopathy, hypersensitivity to TXA, or a history of convulsion were excluded. Patients were randomly assigned, in blocks of 10, to one of 2 groups, TXA or placebo. Anticoagulation therapy was discontinued 2–7 days preoperatively. Prior to the incision, patients received either a bolus of TXA (10 mg/kg) or an equivalent volume of saline solution (placebo). Independent t-tests were used to compare differences between the 2 groups, with statistical significance set at p < 0.05.RESULTSOf the 250 patients enrolled, 17 patients were excluded, leaving 233 cases for analysis (117 in the TXA group and 116 in the placebo group). The demographics of the 2 groups were similar, except for a higher proportion of women in the TXA group (TXA 50% vs placebo 32%, p = 0.017). There was no significant between-groups difference in operative time (49.53 ± 18.26 vs 54.74 ± 24.49 minutes for TXA and placebo, respectively; p = 0.108) or intraoperative blood loss (55.87 ± 48.48 vs 69.14 ± 83.47 ml for TXA and placebo, respectively; p = 0.702). Postoperative blood loss measured from drain output was 62% significantly lower in the TXA group (13.03 ± 21.82 ml) than in the placebo group (34.61 ± 44.38 ml) (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in number of dural lesions or postoperative spinal epidural hematomas, and there were no thromboembolic events.CONCLUSIONSTranexamic acid did not have a statistically significant effect on operative time, intraoperative blood loss, or complications. This study gives no evidence to support the routine use of TXA during minor lumbar decompressive surgery.Clinical trial registration no.: NCT03714360 (clinicaltrials.gov)

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document