Dorsal dura defects (DDD) can often be assessed and approached directly without further manipulation of intrathecal neural structures, therefore a primary repair for linear defect and an augmented duraplasty using various autograft or allograft dural substitutes are suitable (Fig. 5). In a series of 51 patients with spinal stab injury, 78% of whom underwent dorsal dura primary repair with only 2 patients (4%) developed CSF leakage related to wound infection.(5)
While dorsal approach provides access to dorsal and lateral dura sac, it does not provide adequate access ventrally unless retracting or mobilizing of the neural structures which is often dangerous especially in cervical and thoracic level.(8) To prevent secondary injury to the spinal cord, two techniques of indirect repair have been reported in literature of ISCH, which are duraplasty and widening of dural defect, respectively.(9) A comparison made by Saito et al showed more patients who underwent primary ventral dura closure had worsened neurological outcome compared to those underwent duraplasty or widening of the defect, suggesting an indirect repair is recommended than direct one in VDD.(10) A study of duraplasty after acute cervical laceration spinal cord injury in a rat model concluded that duraplasty was able to improve CSF flow by limiting meningeal fibrosis, reduce connective tissue formation, attenuate macrophage accumulation and progressive secondary injury, further supporting the use of duraplasty over widening of dural defect regarding choosing between indirect repair techniques.(11) An indirect duraplasty can further be classified into patch attachment and sling procedure.(12, 13) Patch attachment requires manipulation of the neural structures for direct visualization of the defect edge to apply stitches or fibrin glue.(12) Meanwhile in sling procedure, dura graft is glided into the ventral space and fixed to bilateral dura wall without retraction of spinal cord.(14)
Based on above evidences, for repair of NMPSI with ventral dura defect, the risk of spinal cord mobilization should be of primary concern for choosing appropriate technique (Fig. 5). One thing makes the patients with NMPSI comparable to patients with ISCH is that a blunt injury with dural tissue loss in patients with NMPSI mimicking a spontaneous dura defect in ISCH. With sling procedure, even a larger defect can be repaired indirectly simply by dividing dentate ligament and designing sleeves for segmental roots to pass through. The use of sling procedure in NMPSI has never been reported to our knowledge, and a good outcome in our case demonstrates that sling procedure should be considered in managing patients with ventral dura defect.
For the choice of dural substitute, a great variety of grafts including autograft (ex: muscle fascia, fat), allograft (ex: cadaveric dural graft), xenograft (ex: bovine pericardium) and synthetic graft (ex: ePTFE dural substitute, Teflon, Gore-Tex).(12, 15) Autograft was the first applied graft owning to its easy availability, but was limited by insufficient soft tissue and additional incisions.(16, 17) Allograft and xenograft are more flexible choices regarding to the customized sizes, but they still obtain the concern of immune reactivity and transmissible disease which includes the risk of prion disease.(17, 18) To avoid spinal cord damage during the insertion of dural graft, the material should be as thin and soft as possible, which is achievable in synthetic graft that can be less than 1 mm. Synthetic graft is also associated with lower rates of wound infections, adhesions, CSF leaks and reoperation comparing to autograft in literature.(19) In the era of biodesign, various innovative grafts aiming biocompatibility, stronger sealing and better manipulation have been presented. The COOK® dural graft we used is an example of using decellularized extracellular matrix to prevent immune response while still providing natural scaffold for cell growth.(20) Additional sealant to the duraplasty edge may be beneficial to preventing further CSF leakage.