Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Study Design: A nonrandomized, two-armed prospective study.
Objective: Water-tight dural closure is paramount to the prevention of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage and associated complications. Synthetic polyethylene glycol (PEG) hydrogel has been used as an adjunct to sutured dural repair; however, its expansion postoperatively is a concern for neurological complications. A low-swell formulation of PEG sealant was introduced as DuraSeal Exact Spine Sealant System (DESS). A Post-Approval Study was performed primarily to evaluate the safety and efficacy of DESS for spinal dural repair compared to current alternatives, in a large patient population, reflecting a real-world practice.
Methods: A total of 36 sites in the United States enrolled 429 patients treated with DESS as an adjunct to dural repair in the spinal sealant group and 406 patients treated with all other modalities in the control arm, from October 2011 to June 2016. The primary endpoint was the incidence of CSF leak within 90 days of operation. The secondary endpoints evaluated were deep surgical site infection and neurological serious adverse events.
Results: The CSF leakage in the DESS group (6.6%) was not significantly different from the control group (6.5%) ( = .83), and there was no significant difference in the time to first leak. The two groups had no significant differences in deep surgical site infection (1.6% versus control 2.1%, = .61) or proportion of subjects with neurological serious adverse events (2.9% versus control 1.6%, = .516).
Conclusions: DuraSeal Exact Spinal Sealant is safe when compared to current alternatives for spinal dural repair.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6542171 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2192568218791150 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!