Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dural closure is a routine surgical step in neurosurgery. The benefit of suturing the dura to achieve watertight closure-with or without the use of dural substitutes-has been questioned in supratentorial craniotomy. We performed a retrospective study to examine the possible benefits and harms of suturing the dura compared with no dural closure and the occurrence of postoperative infection, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak, and postcraniotomy headaches.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective study to compare the incidence of CSF leak, infection, surgical site swelling, and postcraniotomy headaches between patients with watertight dural closure (closed group) and patients without watertight dural closure (open group). Any method used to close the dura and to achieve watertight closure was included, whether primary or secondary closure (with or without using suturable dural substitute).
RESULTS: Overall, 216 patients were included in the present study, with 112 patients in the open group and 114 in the closed group. The open group experienced a greater incidence of infection and CSF leak (6 in the open group vs. 2 in the closed group), but without statistical significance (P = 0.15). We found no difference in surgical site swelling (P = 0.29). However, the closed group showed a greater association with the development of postcraniotomy headaches (P = 0.001).
CONCLUSION: We found no difference in the occurrence of CSF leak, infection, or surgical site swelling between the closed and open groups. The incidence of postcraniotomy headaches was greater in the closed group, and the difference was statistically significant.