Dural Closure Techniques and Cerebrospinal Fluid Leak Incidence After Resection of Primary Intradural Spinal Tumors

STUDY DESIGN: This is a systematic review of primary intradural spinal tumors (PIDSTs) and the frequency of postoperative cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leaks. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare CSF leak rates among techniques for dural watertight closure (WTC) after the resection of PIDSTs. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Resection of PIDSTs may result in persistent CSF leak. This complication is associated with infection, wound dehiscence, increased length of stay, and morbidity. Dural closure techniques have been developed to decrease the CSF leak rate. METHODS: A PubMed search was performed in 2022 with these inclusion criteria: written in English, describe PIDST patients, specify the method of dural closure, report rates of CSF leak, and be published between 2015 and 2020. Articles were excluded if they had <5 patients. We used standardized toolkits to assess the risk of bias. We assessed patient baseline characteristics, tumor pathology, CSF leak rate, and dural closure techniques; analysis of variance and a 1-way Fisher exact test were used. RESULTS: A total of 4 studies (201 patients) satisfied the inclusion criteria. One study utilized artificial dura (AD) and fibrin glue to perform WTC and CSF diversion, with lumbar drainage as needed. The rate of CSF leak was different among the 4 studies ( P =0.017). The study using AD with dural closure adjunct (DCA) for WTC was associated with higher CSF leak rates than those using native dura (ND) with DCA. There was no difference in CSF leak rate between ND-WTC and AD-DCA, or with any of the ND-DCA studies. CONCLUSIONS: After resection of PIDSTs, the use of autologous fat grafts with ND resulted in lower rates of CSF leak, while use of fibrin glue and AD resulted in the highest rates. These characteristics suggest that a component of hydrophobic scaffolding may be required for WTC. A limitation included articles with low levels of evidence. Continued investigation to understand mechanisms for WTC is warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3.