• S J Palm, W M Kirsch, Y H Zhu, N Peckham, S Kihara, R Anton, T Anton, K Balzer, and T Eickmann.
• University of Cologne, Germany.
• Neurosurgery. 1999 Oct 1; 45 (4): 875-81; discussion 881-2.

ObjectiveMeningospinal and cranial dural adhesions were compared in a canine model, after duraplasty using nonpenetrating clips or penetrating needles and sutures.MethodsFourteen dogs underwent bilateral craniotomies and duraplasties, with implantation of dural prostheses (DuraGuard; Biovascular Corp., Minneapolis, MN), using either 6-0 silk sutures or titanium clips (DuraClose; Surgical Dynamics, Norwalk, CT). Fourteen other dogs underwent L3-L4 laminectomies; three longitudinal dural incisions were closed with 6-0 silk sutures, 6-0 polyglactin 910 (Vicryl) sutures, or clips. Groups of eight dogs (four cranially treated and four spinally treated) were killed 6, 12, 24, and 52 weeks after surgery, and specimens were collected for study after perfusion and fixation (two cranial and two spinal dural reconstructions at 52 wk). Evaluations included assessment of the appearance of approximated dural margins and responses to clips, sutures, and dural prostheses (inflammation, foreign body reaction, fibrosis, and severity of meningospinal/meningocerebral adhesions). Data were evaluated using the Wilcoxon signed-rank and McNemar tests.ResultsDuraplasties with clips displayed significantly less extensive acute and chronic inflammation, foreign body reaction, and meningoneural adhesions than did repairs with needles and sutures.ConclusionThis report is the first long-term experimental study comparing two fundamentally different methods for dural repair in a relevant animal model.

27 keywords...

hide…