Incidence of Dural Tears in Open versus Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery: A Single-Center Prospective Study

A prospective comparative study. To compare the incidence of unintended durotomy and return to work after open surgery versus minimally invasive spine surgery (MIS) for degenerative lumbar pathologies. The incidence of accidental durotomy varies between 0.3% and 35%. Most of these are from open surg...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Asian spine journal 2022, 16(4), , pp.463-470
Main Authors: Sharma, Ayush, Shakya, Akash, Singh, Vijay, Deepak, Priyank, Mangale, Nilesh, Jaiswal, Ajay, Marathe, Nandan
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Age
Back surgery
Body mass index
Bone surgery
Clinical Study
Diabetes
Diabetes mellitus
dural tear
durotomy
Females
Gender
Hypertension
Laparoscopy
lumbar spine
minimally invasive
Pathology
Patients
Risk factors
Spine (lumbar)
정형외과학
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:A prospective comparative study. To compare the incidence of unintended durotomy and return to work after open surgery versus minimally invasive spine surgery (MIS) for degenerative lumbar pathologies. The incidence of accidental durotomy varies between 0.3% and 35%. Most of these are from open surgeries, and only a handful of studies have involved the MIS approach. No single-center studies have compared open surgery with MIS, especially in the context of early return to work and dural tear (DT). This study included 420 operated cases of degenerative lumbar pathology with a prospective follow-up of at least 6 months. Patients were divided into the open surgery and MIS groups, and the incidences of DT, early return to work, and various demographic and operative factors were compared. A total of 156 and 264 patients underwent MIS and open surgery, respectively. Incidental durotomy was documented in 52 cases (12.4%); this was significantly less in the MIS group versus the open surgery group (6.4% vs. 15.9%, p
ISSN:1976-1902
1976-7846
DOI:10.31616/asj.2021.0140