ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2015
Remote Cerebellar Hemorrhage Complicating Unintended Durotomy in Lumbar Spine Surgery.
Article in International journal of spine surgery, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- The hidden risk: Intracranial hemorrhage following durotomies in spine surgery.North American Spine Society journal · 2024Article
- Efficacy and Safety of the Ultrasonic Bone Scalpel in Lumbar Laminectomies.Spine surgery and related research · 2023Article
- Postoperative Intracranial Hemorrhage after an Endoscopic L5-S1 Laminectomy and Discectomy: A Case Report and Literature Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Intracranial hemorrhage after spinal surgery: a literature review.Annals of translational medicine · 2022Review
- Seizures following cervical laminectomy and lateral mass fusion: case report and review of the literature.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2021Article
- Cerebellar Hemorrhage and Spinal Fluid Overdrainage With Tonsillar Herniation Following Spine Surgery.Cureus · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designCase reports and retrospective review of accidental durotomies in lumbar surgeries during 5 years.
objectivesTo draw attention to a potentially serious complication of incidental durotomy-remote cerebellar hemorrhage. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND DATA: Accidental durotomy is a frequent complication of spinal surgery. In most cases the outcome of incidental durotomy is favorable. A delayed potentially serious complication of CSF loss during and after lumbar surgery is remote cerebellar hemorrhage (RCH).
methodsDuring 2008-2012, 1169 lumbar spine procedures were performed at our spine center. In 210 surgeries incidental or intentional durotomies occurred. All patients with durotomies were managed with suturing of the dural wound followed by deep wound drainage left for 5 days and tight wound closure.
resultsOf the 210 patients with CSF loss three patients were identified to suffer from RCH-an incidence of 0.26%. The three patients ages 56, 67 and 75 years developed RCH between 36-192 hours after surgery. All three were managed with supportive treatment and close clinical supervision. A gradual clinical and radiological improvement was noted in all three patients.
conclusionsSevere headache after spinal surgery and or declining mental status should not be attributed only to low CSF pressure secondary to dural tearing. It can also be the result of remote cerebral or cerebellar hemorrhage. Once the diagnosis of RCH is made, close clinical supervision is mandatory. In most cases non-operative supportive treatment may lead to eventual full clinical recovery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.