0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Original Article |

Choice of Graft Material and Postoperative Healing in Endoscopic Repair of Cerebrospinal Fluid Leak FREE

Kara K. Prickett, MD; Sarah K. Wise, MD; John M. DelGaudio, MD
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Department of Otolaryngology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.


Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2011;137(5):457-461. doi:10.1001/archoto.2011.12.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Descriptions of surgical repair of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak have been published in the literature since 1926, when Dandy1 first described a successful intracranial repair technique. Over the past 80 years, the preferred method of repair has evolved as new instruments, imaging modalities, and repair materials have become available. After Wigand2 first described successful transnasal endoscopic repair of CSF leak in 1981, multiple authors have confirmed the excellent success rates and relatively benign morbidity profile associated with this closure method.313

The details of operative technique vary widely; successful repairs have been described with methods both simple and complex and with materials ranging from endogenous tissues to allografts, xenografts, and engineered matrices. Despite significant progress, a consensus on how to provide the best outcomes for patients has yet to be reached. To date, there are few comparative data available to help surgeons differentiate among available graft materials. This study was designed to assess early postoperative healing after repair of CSF leak with 3 different graft materials. Specifically, we compared weeks of graft crusting, time to graft mucosalization, and rate of recurrent CSF leak in patients undergoing endoscopic repair of CSF leaks with acellular dermis, collagen matrices, and sinonasal mucosal grafts.

DATA COLLECTION

A retrospective review of sequential patients undergoing endoscopic repair of CSF leak at a tertiary care referral center from March 2007 through May 2009 was undertaken. Patients were identified from the operative records of the 2 primary rhinologists (S.K.W. and J.M.D.) at the institution, who performed all surgical procedures. Patient selection was limited to a 2-year period when all 3 graft materials were in routine use to ensure comparable size of study groups. Demographic data and information on the site and pathogenesis of the CSF leak were collected on all patients. Defect size was recorded based on endoscopic examination and radiographic findings. Some defects were created intraoperatively (eg, during transsphenoidal adenectomy), and detailed size information was not available. Careful inspection of graft and donor site(s), if applicable, was undertaken at each follow-up visit. The patients were seen at 2, 5 to 6, and 10 to 12 weeks after surgery. Subsequent follow-up visits occurred at 2- to 3-month intervals and were determined on an individual basis. Primary outcomes included weeks of graft crusting, time to mucosalization of graft, and rate of recurrence of CSF leak. All complications related to instrumentation on the day of surgery were recorded. The institutional review board of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, granted approval for this study.

SURGICAL TECHNIQUE

Grafts were composed of native sinonasal mucosa, acellular dermis (Alloderm; LifeCell Corp, Branchburg, New Jersey), or collagen matrix (Duraform; Codman & Shurtleff Inc, Raynham, Massacusetts; and DuraGen; Integra Lifesciences Corp, Plainsboro, New Jersey). The choice of graft material was left to the primary surgeon. Closures consisted of a single layer of study material supported by bone graft or multiple layers of study material. No cartilage grafts were used. Fibrin glue and absorbable packing were used to secure and bolster all grafts. The use of additional measures to support graft healing, such as nonabsorbable nasal packing or lumbar drains, was left to the discretion of the primary surgeon.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Data were entered into an Excel spreadsheet (Microsoft, Seattle, Washington) and analyzed using SPSS version 11.0 statistical software (SPSS Inc, Chicago, Illinois). Data on recurrent leaks were not analyzed, as no patient had a recurrence of CSF leak during the postoperative assessment period. Univariate analysis of variance with Tukey post hoc testing was used to analyze time to graft mucosalization. An independent samples t test was used to compare weeks of crusting in the acellular dermis group and the collagen matrix groups. Because no patients in the mucosal graft group had graft crusting, this group was not included in this portion of the analysis. Statistical significance was defined at P < .05. Complications did not occur with sufficient frequency or variability to support valid statistical analysis.

Forty patients underwent 43 eligible procedures during the study period. In patients undergoing repairs at multiple sites, each skull base defect was assessed as a separate case (3 patients each had 2 anatomically separate sites of skull base defect repair). Three eligible patients had incomplete records and were excluded, leaving a study group of 37 patients (40 total procedures). Seventeen repairs were performed with mucosal grafts, 10 with acellular dermis, and 13 with collagen matrix–based materials. The characteristics of each group are shown in Table 1. The average follow-up time was 5.3 months (range, 0.5-21.0 months). Precise measurements of defect size were not available for all patients. In general, defect sizes were similar among patients receiving acellular dermis and collagen matrix grafts and tended to be smaller in the mucosal graft group. Concern for donor site morbidity limited the use of muscosal grafts in the repair of large defects. There was a significant difference in time to mucosalization with acellular dermis (11.7 weeks) when compared with collagen matrices (6.6 weeks) or mucosa (4.9 weeks) (P < .001), with a large effect size (η2 = 0.55). Mucosa and collagen matrix grafts were not significantly different from each other (P = .19).

Graft crusting was more prolonged with acellular dermis (9.4 weeks) than with collagen matrices (5.1 weeks) (P = .04). At the first postoperative evaluation, no patients with mucosal grafts had graft crusting. Representative photographs of each graft type at the 6-week postoperative visit are shown in Figure 1. Donor site crusting was only present in the mucosal group, with an average duration of 6.5 weeks (range, 1.0-20.0 weeks). Donor site crusting at 4 weeks is shown in Figure 2.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Intranasal photographs at the 6-week follow-up visit. A, Acellular dermis graft in the central anterior skull base. B, Collagen matrix graft in the sphenoid roof. C, Mucosal graft in the posterosuperior sphenoid sinus.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Nasal septal graft harvest site at 5-week follow-up visit before (A) and after (B) debridement.

Graphic Jump Location

Complications are shown in Table 2. Any complication requiring further procedural intervention was designated as a major complication. Eighteen patients (48%) reported a complication or adverse effect from surgery. Of these, 16 (88%) had minor complications, and 2 (5%) had complications that required procedural intervention. One patient in the collagen matrix group had a retained portion of a lumbar drain catheter and was taken to the operating room for uncomplicated image-guided retrieval of the catheter tip. One patient in the mucosal graft group had postoperative epistaxis that required nasal packing and embolization of the sphenopalatine artery on the operative side. The most common complication was formation of synechiae, which occurred in 5 patients (4 in the mucosal graft group; 1 in the acellular dermis graft group).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Complications Related to Surgical Intervention

A survey of the core otolaryngologic and neurologic surgery journals yields dozens of articles pertaining to repair of CSF leak. Multiple successful techniques for repair have been described, ranging from simple endoscopic local mucosal flaps to complex free tissue transfer with microvascular anastamosis.1418 Fixation of grafts with suture, fibrin adhesives, fibroblast growth factor, and laser tissue welding has been documented.1922 Similarly, myriad graft materials have been used in endoscopic repair of the skull base. Autologous tissue, in the form of mucosa, bone, fascia, fat, or muscle, has been used extensively because of its availability, low cost, and biocompatibility. Processed tissues such as decellularized human dermis, bovine pericardium, or equine Achilles tendon have been used to add structural support or when local tissues are limited.2325 Advances in tissue engineering have also made synthetic collagen matrices and dural substitutes available for routine use. Reported benefits include a microstructure that has been optimized for fibroblast and blood vessel ingrowth, rapid incorporation into surrounding tissue, and minimal inflammatory reaction in the surrounding native tissue.2629

Studies have been published showing the efficacy of all the materials mentioned herein, but there continues to be a paucity of comparative evidence supporting one material over another. To date, the literature has defined success with a single outcome: repair with no recurrence of CSF leak. The narrow scope of this definition is somewhat problematic; in experienced hands, most techniques and materials yield similar results, with 90% to 97% of repairs considered successful on first attempt.313 Such parity does little to guide decision making for today's endoscopic surgeon and suggests that consideration of multiple outcomes may be necessary to determine best practice standards in repair of CSF leak. This study addresses the postoperative phase of surgical treatment of CSF leak.

The postoperative healing process requires weeks of time, care, and monitoring, which may factor heavily in both patients' and surgeons' perceptions of “successful” operations. In an attempt to characterize postoperative healing objectively in this study, time of graft crusting, time to mucosalization of the grafts, and time to failure of the grafts were measured. No grafts failed during the follow-up period. One patient in the collagen matrix group and 1 patient in the acellular dermis group had partial graft loss without recurrence of leak. These results correlate well with previously published excellent success rates in endoscopic repair of CSF leak.

Postoperative crusting in the nose hinders mucosalization, inhibits surveillance of the operative site(s), and contributes to symptoms of nasal obstruction. During the postoperative period, in-office debridement of crusts is necessary to ensure proper healing of the underlying tissue. These debridements can be uncomfortable for the patient and time consuming for all parties involved. Removal of crusting directly over the graft site also carries the risk of graft dislodgment. Our results indicate that acellular dermis grafts have significantly longer periods of postoperative crusting than mucosal or collagen matrix grafts. Mucosal grafts were incorporated rapidly into the surrounding mucosa with no crusting observed but carried the unique morbidity of donor site crusting. Total weeks of crusting were comparable in the mucosal and the collagen matrix graft groups.

Mucosalization of the graft and adjacent surgically treated tissue provides physical evidence of the healing process. It is also essential for return of normal nasal function. Tissue that heals with granulation or scar may exhibit abnormal mucociliary clearance, which can lead to recurrent sinus disease. A competent mucosal barrier also helps protect the graft site from intranasal insults such as mechanical trauma and infection. Our results showed that acellular dermis grafts had a significantly longer time to mucosalization than collagen matrix or mucosal grafts. This longer time may be attributable to the need for processed tissues, such as acellular dermis, to be remodeled by host fibroblasts and angiogenic factors. Matrix graft materials are purposefully constructed for rapid incorporation into host tissue and do not contain unnecessary donor structures. Mucosal grafts obviously require little to no remodeling but have been shown to contract by up to 20% in the postoperative period.7

Our study is limited by its small sample size and retrospective design, both of which introduce the possibility of selection bias. A degree of selection bias based on defect size could not be avoided, as some defects were simply too large to be repaired with local mucosal flaps. Defect size could also affect healing time and would be expected to be most significant when comparing the mucosal graft group (which generally had smaller defects) with the groups requiring exogenous graft materials for closure. However, the duration of the crusting at mucosal donor sites was comparable to that of the crusting seen with acellular dermis grafts. Also, defect size was similar among patients receiving acellular dermis and collagen matrix grafts and is therefore unlikely to fully explain the differences in healing time between these groups. Crusting and mucosalization were determined by a single, unblinded evaluator (the primary surgeon: S.K.W. or J.M.D.), which could potentially lead to assessment bias. To minimize assessment bias, enrollment in the study was limited to a period during which all 3 graft materials were in routine use.

Despite the limitations, several important conclusions can be drawn from the results of this study. The above-mentioned data show that graft materials are associated with different postoperative healing profiles. Specifically, acellular dermis grafts appear to have prolonged healing when compared with mucosal and collagen matrix grafts. How, and if, these differences affect nasal functioning, graft stability, and overall success of the procedure remains unclear without further investigation. It is clear, however, that the results of comparative effectiveness research will play an increasing role in guiding medical decision making in the near future. Graft materials that require more complex surgery, more frequent follow-up, or more postoperative intervention may fall out of favor as the cost and efficiency of health care delivery fall under greater scrutiny. In conducting further research, treatment “success” may need to be redefined to incorporate the entire surgical care experience, rather than focusing on the single surgical outcome of preventing recurrent CSF leak.

In conclusion, repairs using sinonasal mucosa, acellular dermis, and collagen matrices are equally effective in preventing recurrent CSF leak. Acellular dermis grafts have a longer time to mucosalization and longer periods of postoperative crusting than mucosal or collagen matrix grafts. Further study of the postoperative healing expected with different graft materials may help determine the best surgical strategy for endoscopic management of CSF leak.

ARTICLE INFORMATION

Correspondence: John M. DelGaudio, MD, Department of Otolaryngology, Emory University, 1365A Clifton Rd NE, Ste A2300, Atlanta, GA 30322 (delgau@emory.edu).

Submitted for Publication: June 24, 2010; final revision received October 26, 2010; accepted December 17, 2010.

Published Online: February 21, 2011. doi:10.1001/archoto.2011.12

Author Contributions: All authors had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design: Wise and DelGaudio. Acquisition of data: Wise and DelGaudio. Analysis and interpretation of data: Pickett, Wise, and DelGaudio. Drafting of the manuscript: Pickett and Wise. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Wise and DelGaudio. Administrative, technical, and material support: Pickett and DelGaudio. Study supervision: Wise.

Financial Disclosure: Dr DelGaudio receives honoraria from Arthrocare for work as a consultant and is a member of the Scientific Advisory Board.

Funding/Support: Drs Wise and DelGaudio receive grant support from Arthrocare, Inc. Dr DelGaudio is on the scientific advisory board for Arthrocare, Inc.

Previous Presentation: This study was presented in part at the Fall Meeting of the American Rhinologic Society; October 3, 2009; San Diego, California.

Additional Contributions: Justin C. Wise, PhD, assisted with statistical analysis.

Dandy  WE Pneumocephalus (intracranial pneumatocele or aerocele). Arch Surg 1926;12949- 982
Link to Article
Wigand  ME Transnasal ethmoidectomy under endoscopical control. Rhinology 1981;19 (1) 7- 15
PubMed
Dohlman  G Spontaneous cerebrospinal rhinorrhea. Acta Otolaryngol (Stockh) 1948;67 ((suppl)) 20- 23
Link to Article
Mattox  DEKennedy  DW Endoscopic management of cerebrospinal fluid leaks and cephaloceles. Laryngoscope 1990;100 (8) 857- 862
PubMed Link to Article
Banks  CAPalmer  JNChiu  AGO’Malley  BW  JrWoodworth  BAKennedy  DW Endoscopic closure of CSF rhinorrhea: 193 cases over 21 years. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009;140 (6) 826- 833
PubMed Link to Article
Hegazy  HMCarrau  RLSnyderman  CHKassam  AZweig  J Transnasal endoscopic repair of cerebrospinal fluid rhinorrhea: a meta-analysis. Laryngoscope 2000;110 (7) 1166- 1172
PubMed Link to Article
Kerr  JTChu  FWKBayles  SW Cerebrospinal fluid rhinorrhea: diagnosis and management. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2005;38 (4) 597- 611
PubMed Link to Article
Locatelli  DRampa  FAcchiardi  IBignami  MDe Bernardi  FCastelnuovo  P  et al.  Endoscopic endonasal approaches for repair of cerebrospinal fluid leaks: nine-year experience. Neurosurgery 2006;58 (4) (suppl 2)ONS-246- ONS-257
PubMed Link to Article
Lee  TJHuang  CCChuang  CCHuang  SF Transnasal endoscopic repair of cerebrospinal fluid rhinorrhea and skull base defect: ten-year experience. Laryngoscope 2004;114 (8) 1475- 1481
PubMed Link to Article
Zweig  JLCarrau  RLCelin  SE  et al.  Endoscopic repair of cerebrospinal fluid leaks to the sinonasal tract: predictors of success. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000;123 (3) 195- 201
PubMed Link to Article
Platt  MPParnes  SM Management of unexpected cerebrospinal fluid leak during endoscopic sinus surgery. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009;17 (1) 28- 32
PubMed Link to Article
Schlosser  RJBolger  WE Nasal cerebrospinal fluid leaks: critical review and surgical considerations. Laryngoscope 2004;114 (2) 255- 265
PubMed Link to Article
Basu  DHaughey  BHHartman  JM Determinants of success in endoscopic cerebrospinal fluid leak repair. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2006;135 (5) 769- 773
PubMed Link to Article
Tabaee  AAnand  VKBrown  SMLin  JWSchwartz  TH Algorithm for reconstruction after endoscopic pituitary and skull base surgery. Laryngoscope 2007;117 (7) 1133- 1137
PubMed Link to Article
Kitano  MTaneda  M Subdural patch graft technique for watertight closure of large dural defects in extended transsphenoidal surgery. Neurosurgery 2004;54 (3) 653- 661
PubMed Link to Article
Kelly  DFOskouian  RJFineman  I Collagen sponge repair of small cerebrospinal fluid leaks obviates tissue grafts and cerebrospinal fluid diversion after pituitary surgery. Neurosurgery 2001;49 (4) 885- 890
PubMed
Fortes  FSGCarrau  RLSnyderman  CH  et al.  Transpterygoid transposition of a temporoparietal fascia flap: a new method for skull base reconstruction after endoscopic expanded endonasal approaches. Laryngoscope 2007;117 (6) 970- 976
PubMed Link to Article
Weber  SMKim  JDelashaw  JBWax  MK Radial forearm free tissue transfer in the management of persistent cerebrospinal fluid leaks. Laryngoscope 2005;115 (6) 968- 972
PubMed Link to Article
Shah  ARPearlman  ANO’Grady  KMBhattacharyya  TKToriumi  DM Combined use of fibrin tissue adhesive and acellular dermis in dural repair. Am J Rhinol 2007;21 (5) 619- 621
PubMed Link to Article
Kubo  SInui  THasegawa  HYoshimine  T Repair of intractable cerebrospinal fluid rhinorrhea with mucosal flaps and recombinant human basic fibroblast growth factor: technical case report. Neurosurgery 2005;56 (3) E627
PubMed Link to Article
Bleier  BSPalmer  JNGratton  MACohen  NA In vivo laser tissue welding in the rabbit maxillary sinus. Am J Rhinol 2008;22 (6) 625- 628
PubMed Link to Article
Kelley  TFStankiewicz  JAChow  JMOrigitano  TCShea  J Endoscopic closure of postsurgical anterior cranial fossa cerebrospinal fluid leaks. Neurosurgery 1996;39 (4) 743- 746
PubMed Link to Article
Germani  RMVivero  RHerzallah  IRCasiano  RR Endoscopic reconstruction of large anterior skull base defects using acellular dermal allograft. Am J Rhinol 2007;21 (5) 615- 618
PubMed Link to Article
Lorenz  RRDean  RLHurley  DBChuang  JCitardi  MJ Endoscopic reconstruction of anterior and middle cranial fossa defects using acellular dermal allograft. Laryngoscope 2003;113 (3) 496- 501
PubMed Link to Article
Esposito  FCappabianca  PFusco  M  et al.  Collagen-only biomatrix as a novel dural substitute. Examination of the efficacy, safety and outcome: clinical experience on a series of 208 patients. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2008;110 (4) 343- 351
PubMed Link to Article
Stendel  RDanne  MFiss  I  et al.  Efficacy and safety of a collagen matrix for cranial and spinal dural reconstruction using different fixation techniques. J Neurosurg 2008;109 (2) 215- 221
PubMed Link to Article
Narotam  PKReddy  KFewer  DQiao  FNathoo  N Collagen matrix duraplasty for cranial and spinal surgery: a clinical and imaging study. J Neurosurg 2007;106 (1) 45- 51
PubMed Link to Article
Sherman  JHPouratian  NOkonkwo  DOJane  JA  JrLaws  ER Reconstruction of the sellar dura in transsphenoidal surgery using an expanded polytetrafluoroethylene dural substitute. Surg Neurol 2008;69 (1) 73- 76
PubMed Link to Article
Gazzeri  RNeroni  MAlfieri  A  et al.  Transparent equine collagen biomatrix as dural repair: a prospective clinical study. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2009;151 (5) 537- 543
PubMed Link to Article

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Intranasal photographs at the 6-week follow-up visit. A, Acellular dermis graft in the central anterior skull base. B, Collagen matrix graft in the sphenoid roof. C, Mucosal graft in the posterosuperior sphenoid sinus.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Nasal septal graft harvest site at 5-week follow-up visit before (A) and after (B) debridement.

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Complications Related to Surgical Intervention

References

Dandy  WE Pneumocephalus (intracranial pneumatocele or aerocele). Arch Surg 1926;12949- 982
Link to Article
Wigand  ME Transnasal ethmoidectomy under endoscopical control. Rhinology 1981;19 (1) 7- 15
PubMed
Dohlman  G Spontaneous cerebrospinal rhinorrhea. Acta Otolaryngol (Stockh) 1948;67 ((suppl)) 20- 23
Link to Article
Mattox  DEKennedy  DW Endoscopic management of cerebrospinal fluid leaks and cephaloceles. Laryngoscope 1990;100 (8) 857- 862
PubMed Link to Article
Banks  CAPalmer  JNChiu  AGO’Malley  BW  JrWoodworth  BAKennedy  DW Endoscopic closure of CSF rhinorrhea: 193 cases over 21 years. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009;140 (6) 826- 833
PubMed Link to Article
Hegazy  HMCarrau  RLSnyderman  CHKassam  AZweig  J Transnasal endoscopic repair of cerebrospinal fluid rhinorrhea: a meta-analysis. Laryngoscope 2000;110 (7) 1166- 1172
PubMed Link to Article
Kerr  JTChu  FWKBayles  SW Cerebrospinal fluid rhinorrhea: diagnosis and management. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2005;38 (4) 597- 611
PubMed Link to Article
Locatelli  DRampa  FAcchiardi  IBignami  MDe Bernardi  FCastelnuovo  P  et al.  Endoscopic endonasal approaches for repair of cerebrospinal fluid leaks: nine-year experience. Neurosurgery 2006;58 (4) (suppl 2)ONS-246- ONS-257
PubMed Link to Article
Lee  TJHuang  CCChuang  CCHuang  SF Transnasal endoscopic repair of cerebrospinal fluid rhinorrhea and skull base defect: ten-year experience. Laryngoscope 2004;114 (8) 1475- 1481
PubMed Link to Article
Zweig  JLCarrau  RLCelin  SE  et al.  Endoscopic repair of cerebrospinal fluid leaks to the sinonasal tract: predictors of success. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000;123 (3) 195- 201
PubMed Link to Article
Platt  MPParnes  SM Management of unexpected cerebrospinal fluid leak during endoscopic sinus surgery. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009;17 (1) 28- 32
PubMed Link to Article
Schlosser  RJBolger  WE Nasal cerebrospinal fluid leaks: critical review and surgical considerations. Laryngoscope 2004;114 (2) 255- 265
PubMed Link to Article
Basu  DHaughey  BHHartman  JM Determinants of success in endoscopic cerebrospinal fluid leak repair. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2006;135 (5) 769- 773
PubMed Link to Article
Tabaee  AAnand  VKBrown  SMLin  JWSchwartz  TH Algorithm for reconstruction after endoscopic pituitary and skull base surgery. Laryngoscope 2007;117 (7) 1133- 1137
PubMed Link to Article
Kitano  MTaneda  M Subdural patch graft technique for watertight closure of large dural defects in extended transsphenoidal surgery. Neurosurgery 2004;54 (3) 653- 661
PubMed Link to Article
Kelly  DFOskouian  RJFineman  I Collagen sponge repair of small cerebrospinal fluid leaks obviates tissue grafts and cerebrospinal fluid diversion after pituitary surgery. Neurosurgery 2001;49 (4) 885- 890
PubMed
Fortes  FSGCarrau  RLSnyderman  CH  et al.  Transpterygoid transposition of a temporoparietal fascia flap: a new method for skull base reconstruction after endoscopic expanded endonasal approaches. Laryngoscope 2007;117 (6) 970- 976
PubMed Link to Article
Weber  SMKim  JDelashaw  JBWax  MK Radial forearm free tissue transfer in the management of persistent cerebrospinal fluid leaks. Laryngoscope 2005;115 (6) 968- 972
PubMed Link to Article
Shah  ARPearlman  ANO’Grady  KMBhattacharyya  TKToriumi  DM Combined use of fibrin tissue adhesive and acellular dermis in dural repair. Am J Rhinol 2007;21 (5) 619- 621
PubMed Link to Article
Kubo  SInui  THasegawa  HYoshimine  T Repair of intractable cerebrospinal fluid rhinorrhea with mucosal flaps and recombinant human basic fibroblast growth factor: technical case report. Neurosurgery 2005;56 (3) E627
PubMed Link to Article
Bleier  BSPalmer  JNGratton  MACohen  NA In vivo laser tissue welding in the rabbit maxillary sinus. Am J Rhinol 2008;22 (6) 625- 628
PubMed Link to Article
Kelley  TFStankiewicz  JAChow  JMOrigitano  TCShea  J Endoscopic closure of postsurgical anterior cranial fossa cerebrospinal fluid leaks. Neurosurgery 1996;39 (4) 743- 746
PubMed Link to Article
Germani  RMVivero  RHerzallah  IRCasiano  RR Endoscopic reconstruction of large anterior skull base defects using acellular dermal allograft. Am J Rhinol 2007;21 (5) 615- 618
PubMed Link to Article
Lorenz  RRDean  RLHurley  DBChuang  JCitardi  MJ Endoscopic reconstruction of anterior and middle cranial fossa defects using acellular dermal allograft. Laryngoscope 2003;113 (3) 496- 501
PubMed Link to Article
Esposito  FCappabianca  PFusco  M  et al.  Collagen-only biomatrix as a novel dural substitute. Examination of the efficacy, safety and outcome: clinical experience on a series of 208 patients. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2008;110 (4) 343- 351
PubMed Link to Article
Stendel  RDanne  MFiss  I  et al.  Efficacy and safety of a collagen matrix for cranial and spinal dural reconstruction using different fixation techniques. J Neurosurg 2008;109 (2) 215- 221
PubMed Link to Article
Narotam  PKReddy  KFewer  DQiao  FNathoo  N Collagen matrix duraplasty for cranial and spinal surgery: a clinical and imaging study. J Neurosurg 2007;106 (1) 45- 51
PubMed Link to Article
Sherman  JHPouratian  NOkonkwo  DOJane  JA  JrLaws  ER Reconstruction of the sellar dura in transsphenoidal surgery using an expanded polytetrafluoroethylene dural substitute. Surg Neurol 2008;69 (1) 73- 76
PubMed Link to Article
Gazzeri  RNeroni  MAlfieri  A  et al.  Transparent equine collagen biomatrix as dural repair: a prospective clinical study. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2009;151 (5) 537- 543
PubMed Link to Article

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

991 Views
8 Citations
×

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
Jobs
JAMAevidence.com

The Rational Clinical Examination: Evidence-Based Clinical Diagnosis
Original Article: Can the Clinical History Distinguish Between Organic and Functional Dyspepsia?

The Rational Clinical Examination: Evidence-Based Clinical Diagnosis
Original Article: Can the Clinical History Distinguish Between Organic and Functional Dyspepsia?