Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1
- Demonstration of the intraoperative application of the dural substitute (Hemopatch®). A) Dural defect post-brain tumor resection. B) Dural sealant substitute (Hemopatch®) placement over the dural defect extending over to the craniotomy edges. C) Craniotomy bone flap fixation with microplate and screw technique.
- Figure 2
- Illustration of the Hemopatch® application before and after cranial bone flap fixation.
Tables
Procedure details Total Supratentorial Infratentorial Variable n (%) n 119 (100) 110 (92.44) 9 (7.56) CSF-diversion 6 (5.04) 3 (2.73) 3 (33.33) Dural defect 0.5-2cm 18 (15.13) 17 (15.45) 1 (11.11) Dural defect >2cm 101 (84.87) 93 (84.55) 8 (88.89) Procedure complications Variable CSF-leak 2 (1.68) 1 (0.91) 1 (11.11) Infection 1 (0.84) 1 (0.91) 0 (0) - Table 2
- Summary of the literature evaluating hemopatch® utilization in cranial neurosurgery.
Author/year Study type Number of patients Hemopatch® placement Site CSF leak incidence Related infection Nowak et al./201916 Prospective observational study 34 Cranial 5.9% 2.9% Schebesch et al. 201913 Retrospective 22 Cranial 4.5% 4.5% Diaz-Molina et al./202014 Prospective compare observational study: Tisseel® vs Hemopatch® 65: Tissel® 82: Hemopatch® 97 Cranial (supratentorial 32 Cranial (infratentorial)18 Spinal Tisseel® : 13.8% (3.6%) vs Hemopatch® : 3.6% (p < 0.05) Cranial (supratentorial): 5.1% Cranial (infratentorial): 15.6% Spinal: 11.11% 8.2% Montano et al./202010 Prosepective observational study: Hemopatch® with fibrin glue 22 8 Cranial 0% 0% 14 Spinal Schebesch et al./202317 Registry based Multicenter observational study 147 123 Cranial Cranial: 7.3% 1.36% 24 Spinal Spinal: 8.3% Present study Retrospective 119 Cranial 1.7% 0.84%
In this issue
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- No citing articles found.