{"title":"Predictors and Management Strategies of Pseudomeningoceles in Neurosurgical\nProcedures: Breaking the Ice","authors":"","doi":"10.33140/an.03.01.05","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Pseudomeningoceles are extradural collections of CSF that result following a breach in the dural–\narachnoid layer. Pseudomeningoceles are recognized complications after cranial and spinal surgery with some centers\nreporting an incidence exceeding 40%.\nAims and Objectives: To evaluate the predictors of post-operative pseudomeningoceles in neurosurgical practice.\nTo formulate a standardised management protocol for treatment of pseudomeningocele.\nMaterials and Methods: This is a prospective study where all cases of cranial and spinal pseudomeningoceles\nwere taken into consideration from October 2016 to October 2018 (2 years ).There were 45 consecutive cases of\npseudomeningocele were included in the study.\nResults: Among the total cranial and spinal cases operated in one year period at our institute incidence of\npseudomeningocele was noted to be 1.1% (45/3892). 38 (84.4%) were cranial cases, among them 21 (46.7%) were\nsupratentorial and 17 (37.8%) were infratentorial, 5 (15.6%) cases had primary water tight dural closure, 33 ( 73.3%)\nduraplasty done using pericranial fascia, Dura was not kept opened in any cases and artificial sealants were not\nused in any case.7 (15.6%) were spinal cases and 4 cases dura was not opened and didn’t recognize any leak,3 cases\ndura was opened and primary dural closure done in 2 cases and 1 case closure was done using a muscle graft, no\nartificial sealants were used. Pseudomeningocele was managed with multiple treatment modalities and best treatment\noptions noted were bed rest with tight bandage application (44.4%), Continuous lumbar drain for 5 days (17.8%),\nIntermittent lumbar drainage for 5 days (13.3%), these three constituted 75.5% of successful treatment modality\nused. Post pseudomeningocele development hydrocephalus was noted in 7 (15.6%) among them 3 (6.7%) cases\nrequired ventriculo-peritoneal shunt. Only 2(4.4%) patients developed complications like csf leak and meningitis\nand 3 (6.7%) cases had mortality.\nConclusion: We conclude that in our study pseudomeningocele was found to be more common in the supratentorial\ncompartment in contrast to other studies in literature, majority of the cases subsided with conservative management,\ntype of closure of the dura did not impact the outcome, meningitis was not a significant etiology and standardized\nmanagement protocol has been proposed for effective management of pseudomeningocele.","PeriodicalId":93246,"journal":{"name":"Advances in neurology and neuroscience","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in neurology and neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33140/an.03.01.05","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Pseudomeningoceles are extradural collections of CSF that result following a breach in the dural–
arachnoid layer. Pseudomeningoceles are recognized complications after cranial and spinal surgery with some centers
reporting an incidence exceeding 40%.
Aims and Objectives: To evaluate the predictors of post-operative pseudomeningoceles in neurosurgical practice.
To formulate a standardised management protocol for treatment of pseudomeningocele.
Materials and Methods: This is a prospective study where all cases of cranial and spinal pseudomeningoceles
were taken into consideration from October 2016 to October 2018 (2 years ).There were 45 consecutive cases of
pseudomeningocele were included in the study.
Results: Among the total cranial and spinal cases operated in one year period at our institute incidence of
pseudomeningocele was noted to be 1.1% (45/3892). 38 (84.4%) were cranial cases, among them 21 (46.7%) were
supratentorial and 17 (37.8%) were infratentorial, 5 (15.6%) cases had primary water tight dural closure, 33 ( 73.3%)
duraplasty done using pericranial fascia, Dura was not kept opened in any cases and artificial sealants were not
used in any case.7 (15.6%) were spinal cases and 4 cases dura was not opened and didn’t recognize any leak,3 cases
dura was opened and primary dural closure done in 2 cases and 1 case closure was done using a muscle graft, no
artificial sealants were used. Pseudomeningocele was managed with multiple treatment modalities and best treatment
options noted were bed rest with tight bandage application (44.4%), Continuous lumbar drain for 5 days (17.8%),
Intermittent lumbar drainage for 5 days (13.3%), these three constituted 75.5% of successful treatment modality
used. Post pseudomeningocele development hydrocephalus was noted in 7 (15.6%) among them 3 (6.7%) cases
required ventriculo-peritoneal shunt. Only 2(4.4%) patients developed complications like csf leak and meningitis
and 3 (6.7%) cases had mortality.
Conclusion: We conclude that in our study pseudomeningocele was found to be more common in the supratentorial
compartment in contrast to other studies in literature, majority of the cases subsided with conservative management,
type of closure of the dura did not impact the outcome, meningitis was not a significant etiology and standardized
management protocol has been proposed for effective management of pseudomeningocele.