Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37226383›Full record

ArticleAsian spine journal2023

Incidence, Risk Factors, and Outcomes of Incidental Durotomy during Lumbar Spine Decompression with or without Fusion.

Gregory Toci, Mark James Lambrechts, Tariq Issa, Brian Karamian, Nicholas Siegel, Nicholas D' Antonio, Jose Canseco, Mark Kurd, Barrett Woods, Ian David Kaye and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Asian spine journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Impact of postoperative cauda equina clumping on recovery after biportal endoscopic decompression for severe lumbar stenosis.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Gregory TociDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rothman Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Mark James LambrechtsDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rothman Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Tariq IssaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rothman Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Brian KaramianDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rothman Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Nicholas SiegelDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rothman Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Nicholas D' AntonioDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rothman Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Jose CansecoDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rothman Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Mark KurdDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rothman Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Barrett WoodsDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rothman Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Ian David KayeDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rothman Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Alan HilibrandDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rothman Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Christopher KeplerDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rothman Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Alexander VaccaroDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rothman Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Gregory SchroederDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rothman Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

designRetrospective cohort study. PURPOSE: The primary objective of this study was to determine the incidence and risk factors for incidental durotomies during lumbar decompression surgeries. In addition, we aimed to determine the changes in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) based on incidental durotomy status. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: There is limited literature investigating the affect of incidental durotomy on patient reported outcome measures. While the majority of research does not suggest differences in complications, readmission, or revision rates, many studies rely on public databases, and their sensitivity and specificity for identifying incidental durotomies is unknown.

methodsPatients undergoing lumbar decompression with or without fusion at a single tertiary care center were grouped based on the presence of a durotomy. Multivariate analysis was performed for length of stay (LOS), hospital readmissions, and changes in PROMs. To identify surgical risk factors for durotomy, 3:1 propensity matching was performed using stepwise logistic regression. The sensitivity and specificity of the International Classification of Disease, 10th revision (ICD-10) codes (G96.11 and G97.41) were also assessed.

resultsOf the 3,684 consecutive patients who underwent lumbar decompressions, 533 (14.5%) had durotomies, and a complete set of PROMs (preoperative and 1-year postoperative) were available for 737 patients (20.0%). Incidental durotomy was an independent predictor of increased LOS but not hospital readmission or worse PROMs. The durotomy repair method was not associated with hospital readmission or LOS. However, repair with collagen graft and suture predicted reduced improvement in Visual Analog Scale back (β =2.56, p=0.004). Independent risk factors for incidental durotomies included revisions (odds ratio [OR], 1.73; p<0.001), levels decompressed (OR, 1.11; p=0.005), and preoperative diagnosis of spondylolisthesis or thoracolumbar kyphosis. The sensitivity and specificity of ICD-10 codes were 5.4% and 99.9%, respectively, for identifying durotomies.

conclusionsThe durotomy rate for lumbar decompressions was 14.5%. No differences in outcomes were detected except for increased LOS. Database studies relying on ICD codes should be interpreted with caution due to the limited sensitivity in identifying incidental durotomies.

Indexed as

Cerebrospinal fluid leakDural tearHospital readmissionIncidental durotomyLength of stayLumbar spinePatientreported outcome measures

Identifiers

PMID37226383
PMCPMC10460661

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.