ObjectiveTo summarize the experience in management of occult cerebrospinal fluid leakage (CSFL) in posterior thoracolumbar surgeries, and to explore the best drainage duration, as well as to analyse the ways to reduce the risk of CSFL. MethodsA retrospective analysis was made on the clinical data of 26 patients with occult CSFL in posterior thoracolumbar surgeries between January 2011 and January 2013. There were 15 males and 11 females, with the average age of 48.7 years (range, 36-59 years). Headache occurred in 19 cases, and 5 cases had nausea with 3 cases also having vomiting after operation. Drainage tube unobstructed and no CSFL from the skin incision were observed in 23 cases at the postoperative 2nd day, and the drainage pipe clamp test was performed at the 3rd day. Twenty-one patients had no CSFL and were given extubation; 2 cases having CSFL were given extubation after conservative treatments for 10 days. Three patients had CSFL with ineffective conservative treatments at the postoperative 2nd day, then received reoperation, incision suture, and drainage. At the postoperative 3rd day, if no CSFL was observed, these patients were given extubation and stayed in bed for 3-5 days. ResultsAll incisions healed and the healing time was 7-15 days (mean, 8 days). No incision infection, persistent CSFL, and other complications occurred. After extubation, headache, nausea, vomiting, and other symptoms were alleviated immediately. All patients were followed up 12-24 months (mean, 16 months). MRI at the postoperative 6th month showed no subcutaneous epidural pseudocyst. ConclusionThe quality of suturing is the key factor to prevent occult CSFL in posterior thoracolumbar surgery. Under the premise of good suture quality, extubation can be given at the postoperative 3rd day. Before extubation, the drainage pipe clamp test can be performed to make sure no CSFL and to reduce the risk of CSFL from the surgical incision after extubation.
ObjectiveTo review the research on the reasons of unplanned reoperation (URP) for degenerative lumbar spine diseases, and to provide new ideas for improving the quality of surgery for degenerative lumbar spine diseases. Methods The literature about the URP of degenerative lumbar spine diseases at home and abroad in recent years was reviewed and analyzed. Results At present, the reasons for URP include surgical site infection (SSI), hematoma formation, cerebrospinal fluid leakage (CSFL), poor results of surgery, and implant complications. SSI and hematoma formation are the most common causes of URP, which happen in a short time after surgery; CSFL also occurs shortly after surgery but is relatively rare. Poor surgical results and implant complications occurred for a long time after surgery. Factors such as primary disease and surgical procedures have an important impact on the incidence of URP. ConclusionThe main reasons for URP are different in various periods after lumbar spine surgery. Interventions should be given to patients with high-risk URP, which thus can reduce the incidence of URP and improve the surgery quality and patients’ satisfaction.
Objective To evaluate the current status of classification and repair methods for dural injury caused by spinal surgery or trauma, providing new strategies and ideas for the clinical repair of dural injury and the development of related materials. MethodsThe literature related to dural injury both at home and abroad in recent years was thoroughly reviewed and analyzed in order to draw meaningful conclusions. ResultsThere have been numerous retrospective studies on dural injury, but there is a scarcity of prospective and multi-center studies, resulting in a low level of evidence-based research. The incidence and risk factors of dural injury have primarily been studied in relation to common degenerative spinal diseases of the cervical and lumbar spine, with insufficient research on thoracic spine-related diseases. Currently, a universally recognized method for grading and classifying dural injury has not been established, which hampers the development of clinical guidelines for their repair. Furthermore, although there are repair materials and surgical strategies available to address clinical issues such as suture leakage and surgical repair of dural injury in complex locations, there is a lack of comprehensive clinical research and evidence-based data to validate their scientificity and reliability. ConclusionRegardless of the classification of dural injury, suture remains the most important repair method. It is important to further develop new patches or sealants that can meet clinical needs and reduce the difficulty of repair.