Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Indian Journal of Neurotrauma 2021; 18(01): 26-31
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1717216
Original Article

A Randomised Interventional Study to Compare Autologous and Nonautologous Dural Substitutes Among Traumatic Brain Injury Patients

Vir Abhimanyu Pandit
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Narayan Medical College and Hospital, Jamuhar, Rohtas, Bihar, India
,
Rajesh Kumar Sharma
2   Department of Neurosurgery, Atal Bihari Vajpayee Institute of Medical Sciences (ABVIMS), Dr Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi, India
,
Suryanarayanan Bhaskar
3   Department of Neurosurgery, All Indian Institute of Medical Science, Jodhpur, India
,
Amanjeet Singh Kindra
4   Shah Neuro and Trauma Centre Kaithal, Haryana, India
,
Ajay Choudhary
2   Department of Neurosurgery, Atal Bihari Vajpayee Institute of Medical Sciences (ABVIMS), Dr Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi, India
,
LN Gupta
2   Department of Neurosurgery, Atal Bihari Vajpayee Institute of Medical Sciences (ABVIMS), Dr Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi, India
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objectives To determine and compare the effectiveness and safety of galea-pericranium autologous dural graft with nonautologous polypropylene (G-patch) dural substitute among traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients.

Methods A prospective interventional randomized comparative study was conducted at the Department of Neurosurgery from November 2013 to March 2015 after obtaining approval from the institutional ethicas committee. The study population included 50 cases of TBI which were divided into two groups of 25 each by the randomization technique and were treated either with autologous duraplasty (galea-pericranium) or nonautologous polypropylene (G-patch) dural substitute. The outcomes measured were time to duraplasty, blood loss, hospital stay, and the incidence of complications with the two techniques. The data were entered in a MS Excel spreadsheet and analysis was done using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 21.0. A p value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results The average time to harvest galea-pericranium was 5 minutes. Compared with the patients undergoing G-patch, the patients in group pericranium had comparable duraplasty time (minutes) (34.32 vs. 27.80, p = 0.44), significantly lower drain output (54.8 vs. 74.5, p = 0.017), comparable blood loss (322 vs. 308, p = 0.545), comparable blood transfusion (24% vs. 16%, p = 0.48), significantly lesser duration of hospital stay (8.6 vs. 10.44, p = 0.028), comparable wound infection (8% vs. 16%, p = 0.384), and comparable cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak (0% vs. 8%, p = 0.149).

Conclusion The study showed that galea-pericranium and polypropylene dural patch are equally effective and safe dural substitutes in providing a dural seal to minimize the CSF leaks and infections among posttraumatic brain injury patients.

Keywords

dural substitutes - galea-pericranium - traumatic brain injury


Publication History

Article published online:
29 September 2020

© 2020. Neurotrauma Society of India. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Hutchinson PJ, Kolias AG, Tajsic T. et al. Consensus statement from the International Consensus Meeting on the Role of Decompressive Craniectomy in the Management of Traumatic Brain Injury: Consensus statement. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2019; 161 (07) 1261-1274
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Sinha S, Raheja A, Garg M. et al. Decompressive craniectomy in traumatic brain injury: A single-center, multivariate analysis of 1,236 patients at a tertiary care hospital in India. Neurol India 2015; 63 (02) 175-183
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Sun H, Wang H, Diao Y. et al. Large retrospective study of artificial dura substitute in patients with traumatic brain injury undergo decompressive craniectomy. Brain Behav 2018; 8 (05) e00907
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Kizmazoglu C, Aydin HE, Kaya I. et al. Comparison of biomechanical properties of dura mater substitutes and cranial human dura mater: an in vitro study. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2019; 62 (06) 635-642
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Sabatino G, Della Pepa GM, Bianchi F. et al. Autologous dural substitutes: a prospective study. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2014; 116: 20-23
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Centonze R, Agostini E, Massaccesi S, Toninelli S, Morabito L. A novel equine-derived pericardium membrane for dural repair: a preliminary, short-term investigation. Asian J Neurosurg 2016; 11 (03) 201-205
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Ha B-J, Cheong JH, Yi H-J. Risk factors for cerebrospinal fluid leakage after craniotomy and the efficacy of dural sealants application versus dural suturing alone. Nerve 2016; 2: 22-25
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Azzam D, Romiyo P, Nguyen T. et al. Dural repair in cranial surgery is associated with moderate rates of complications with both autologous and nonautologous dural substitutes. World Neurosurg 2018; 113: 244-248
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Bonda DJ, Manjila S, Mehndiratta P. et al. Human prion diseases: surgical lessons learned from iatrogenic prion transmission. Neurosurg Focus 2016; 41 (01) E10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Zhang GL, Yang WZ, Jiang YW, Zeng T. Extensive duraplasty with autologous graft in decompressive craniectomy and subsequent early cranioplasty for severe head trauma. Chin J Traumatol 2010; 13 (05) 259-264
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Kharal IA, Bhatti A, Saeed S, et al. Use of large fascia lata graft as dural substitute in neurosurgical procedures at Neurosurgery Department Teaching Hospital D G Khan. Pakistan J Neurological Sci 2017;21(2)
    PubMed
  • 12 Malliti M, Page P, Gury C, Chomette E, Nataf F, Roux FX. Comparison of deep wound infection rates using a synthetic dural substitute (neuro-patch) or pericranium graft for dural closure: a clinical review of 1 year. Neurosurgery 2004; 54 (03) 599-603, discussion 603–604
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Bangash M, Alkhotani A. Risk factors affecting the postoperative cerebrospinal fluid leak in brain surgery. Int J Contemp Med Res 2016; 3 (05) 1522-1525
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Stendel R, Danne M, Fiss I. et al. Efficacy and safety of a collagen matrix for cranial and spinal dural reconstruction using different fixation techniques. J Neurosurg 2008; 109 (02) 215-221
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Ammar AS. Fibrin glue and fascia lata graft for management of cerebrospinal fluid leakage after cranial surgery, preliminary results. Menoufia Med J 2016; 29: 637-641
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Kinaci A, Algra A, Heuts S, O’Donnell D, van der Zwan A, van Doormaal T. Effectiveness of dural sealants in prevention of cerebrospinal fluid leakage after craniotomy: a systematic review. World Neurosurg 2018; 118: 368-376.e1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Turchan A, Rochman TF, Ibrahim A. et al. Duraplasty using amniotic membrane versus temporal muscle fascia: a clinical comparative study. J Clin Neurosci 2018; 50: 272-276
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Pogorielov M, Kravtsova A, Reilly GC. et al. Experimental evaluation of new chitin-chitosan graft for duraplasty. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2017; 28 (02) 34
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Pathrose Kamalabai R, Nagar M, Chandran R. et al. Rationale behind the use of double-layer polypropylene patch (G-patch) dural substitute during decompressive craniectomy as an adhesion preventive material for subsequent cranioplasty with special reference to flap elevation time. World Neurosurg 2018; 111: e105-e112
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar