Dural Tenting in Elective Craniotomies: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IF 3.9 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Lukasz Przepiorka, Katarzyna Wójtowicz, Sławomir Kujawski, Karol Wiśniewski, Ernest Jan Bobeff, Rafał Kruk, Bartłomiej Kulesza, Jan Fortuniak, Adam Mróz, Piotr Dunaj, Maciej Kaspera, Szymon Hoppe, Kamil Krystkiewicz, Katarzyna Kwiecień, Dariusz Szczepanek, Dariusz J Jaskólski, Piotr Ładziński, Radosław Rola, Jacek Furtak, Tomasz Trojanowski, Andrzej Marchel, Przemysław Kunert
{"title":"Dural Tenting in Elective Craniotomies: A Randomized Clinical Trial.","authors":"Lukasz Przepiorka, Katarzyna Wójtowicz, Sławomir Kujawski, Karol Wiśniewski, Ernest Jan Bobeff, Rafał Kruk, Bartłomiej Kulesza, Jan Fortuniak, Adam Mróz, Piotr Dunaj, Maciej Kaspera, Szymon Hoppe, Kamil Krystkiewicz, Katarzyna Kwiecień, Dariusz Szczepanek, Dariusz J Jaskólski, Piotr Ładziński, Radosław Rola, Jacek Furtak, Tomasz Trojanowski, Andrzej Marchel, Przemysław Kunert","doi":"10.1227/neu.0000000000003480","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Dural tenting sutures are a well-known neurosurgical technique. However, claims of them preventing extradural hematomas (EDHs) lack evidence-based support. For that reason, we decided to evaluate the noninferiority of routinely not tenting the dura in elective supratentorial craniotomies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A randomized, multicenter, investigator-blinded and participant-blinded, controlled interventional trial with 1:1 allocation. We included adults undergoing elective, supratentorial craniotomies. Not tenting the dura was an intervention, and the control group consisted of patients with at least 3 dural tenting sutures. The primary outcome was the risk of reoperation because of EDH, and secondary outcomes included a selection of clinically relevant outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We randomized 490 patients into intervention (238, 49%, not tenting the dura) and control (252, 51%, dural tenting) study groups, as per intention-to-treat analysis. Proportions of EDH surgeries in the intervention group were noninferior in comparison with the control group and not significantly different using the intention-to-treat (0.8% and 0.4%, P = .98), per-protocol (0.5%, 0.4%, P > .99), and as-treated (0.5%, 0.7%, P > .99) analyses. There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes: postoperative 30-day mortality (0.8%, 1.2%, P > .99), postoperative 30-day readmission (1.7%, 4.4%, P = .99), new neurological deficit or deterioration of a previous (19.7%, 15.5%, P = .81), cerebrospinal fluid leak (1.3%, 4.4%, P > .99), deterioration of postoperative headache over 5 numerical rating scale (4.4%, 2.4%, P = .85), epidural collection thickness over 3 mm (90.8%, 87.3%, P = .81), and midline shift over 5 mm (7.6%, 4.8%, P = .791) in the intervention and control study groups in intention-to-treat analysis. Similarly, secondary outcomes were not different in per-protocol and as-treated analyses. Other than cerebrospinal fluid leaks and EDHs, there were 17 adverse events in the intervention group and 19 in the control group (intention-to-treat analysis, 7.1% and 7.5%, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This trial demonstrates the noninferiority of omitting prophylactic dural tenting for postoperative EDH requiring surgery in elective, supratentorial craniotomies.</p>","PeriodicalId":19276,"journal":{"name":"Neurosurgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurosurgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1227/neu.0000000000003480","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objectives: Dural tenting sutures are a well-known neurosurgical technique. However, claims of them preventing extradural hematomas (EDHs) lack evidence-based support. For that reason, we decided to evaluate the noninferiority of routinely not tenting the dura in elective supratentorial craniotomies.

Methods: A randomized, multicenter, investigator-blinded and participant-blinded, controlled interventional trial with 1:1 allocation. We included adults undergoing elective, supratentorial craniotomies. Not tenting the dura was an intervention, and the control group consisted of patients with at least 3 dural tenting sutures. The primary outcome was the risk of reoperation because of EDH, and secondary outcomes included a selection of clinically relevant outcomes.

Results: We randomized 490 patients into intervention (238, 49%, not tenting the dura) and control (252, 51%, dural tenting) study groups, as per intention-to-treat analysis. Proportions of EDH surgeries in the intervention group were noninferior in comparison with the control group and not significantly different using the intention-to-treat (0.8% and 0.4%, P = .98), per-protocol (0.5%, 0.4%, P > .99), and as-treated (0.5%, 0.7%, P > .99) analyses. There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes: postoperative 30-day mortality (0.8%, 1.2%, P > .99), postoperative 30-day readmission (1.7%, 4.4%, P = .99), new neurological deficit or deterioration of a previous (19.7%, 15.5%, P = .81), cerebrospinal fluid leak (1.3%, 4.4%, P > .99), deterioration of postoperative headache over 5 numerical rating scale (4.4%, 2.4%, P = .85), epidural collection thickness over 3 mm (90.8%, 87.3%, P = .81), and midline shift over 5 mm (7.6%, 4.8%, P = .791) in the intervention and control study groups in intention-to-treat analysis. Similarly, secondary outcomes were not different in per-protocol and as-treated analyses. Other than cerebrospinal fluid leaks and EDHs, there were 17 adverse events in the intervention group and 19 in the control group (intention-to-treat analysis, 7.1% and 7.5%, respectively).

Conclusion: This trial demonstrates the noninferiority of omitting prophylactic dural tenting for postoperative EDH requiring surgery in elective, supratentorial craniotomies.

选择性开颅术中的硬脑膜帐篷:一项随机临床试验。
背景和目的:硬脑膜帐篷式缝合是一种众所周知的神经外科技术。然而,声称它们可以预防硬膜外血肿(EDHs)缺乏证据支持。因此,我们决定评估在选择性幕上开颅术中常规不使用硬脑膜的非劣效性。方法:随机、多中心、研究者盲法和参与者盲法、1:1分配的对照干预性试验。我们包括接受选择性幕上开颅手术的成年人。不包封硬脑膜是一种干预,对照组包括至少3次硬脑膜包封缝合线的患者。主要结局是EDH引起的再手术风险,次要结局包括一系列临床相关结局。结果:根据意向治疗分析,我们将490例患者随机分为干预组(238例,49%,未使用硬脑膜)和对照组(252例,51%,使用硬脑膜)。干预组EDH手术的比例与对照组相比并不差,使用意向治疗(0.8%和0.4%,P = 0.98),按方案(0.5%,0.4%,P = 0.99)和治疗后(0.5%,0.7%,P = 0.99)分析没有显着差异。次要结局无显著差异:术后30天死亡率(0.8%,1.2%,P = 0.99),术后30天再入院率(1.7%,4.4%,P = 0.99),新发神经功能缺损或既往神经功能恶化(19.7%,15.5%,P = 0.81),脑脊液漏(1.3%,4.4%,P = 0.99),术后头痛恶化超过5级数值评分(4.4%,2.4%,P = 0.85),硬膜外收集厚度超过3 mm (90.8%, 87.3%, P = 0.81),中线移位超过5 mm (7.6%, 4.8%, P = 0.81)。P = .791)。同样,在每个方案和治疗后的分析中,次要结果也没有差异。除脑脊液漏和EDHs外,干预组有17例不良事件,对照组有19例(意向治疗分析分别为7.1%和7.5%)。结论:该试验表明,在选择性幕上开颅术中,对于术后EDH需要手术的患者,省略预防性硬脑膜支架治疗是非低效性的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Neurosurgery
Neurosurgery 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
6.20%
发文量
898
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: Neurosurgery, the official journal of the Congress of Neurological Surgeons, publishes research on clinical and experimental neurosurgery covering the very latest developments in science, technology, and medicine. For professionals aware of the rapid pace of developments in the field, this journal is nothing short of indispensable as the most complete window on the contemporary field of neurosurgery. Neurosurgery is the fastest-growing journal in the field, with a worldwide reputation for reliable coverage delivered with a fresh and dynamic outlook.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信