Evan Luther1, Katherine Berry2, David McCarthy2, Jagteshwar Sandhu3, Roxanne Mayrand4, Christina Guerrero5, Daniel G Eichberg2, Simon Buttrick2, Ashish Shah2, Angela M Richardson2, Ricardo Komotar2, Michael Ivan2. 1. Department of Neurological Surgery, Lois Pope Life Center, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Jackson Health System, 2nd floor 1095 NW 14th Terrace, Miami, FL, 33136, USA. evan.luther@jhsmiami.org. 2. Department of Neurological Surgery, Lois Pope Life Center, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Jackson Health System, 2nd floor 1095 NW 14th Terrace, Miami, FL, 33136, USA. 3. University of Miami MILLER School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA. 4. Neuroscience Department, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA. 5. Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hair-sparing techniques in cranial neurosurgery have gained traction in recent years and previous studies have shown no difference in infection rates, yet limited data exists evaluating the specific closure techniques utilized during hair-sparing craniotomies. Therefore, it was the intention of this study to evaluate the rate of surgical site infections (SSIs) and perioperative complications associated with using an absorbable intradermal barbed suture for skin closure in hair-sparing supratentorial craniotomies for tumor in order to prove non-inferiority to traditional methods. METHODS: A retrospective review of supratentorial craniotomies for tumor by a single surgeon from 2011 to 2017 was performed. All perioperative adverse events and wound complications, defined as a postoperative infection, wound dehiscence, or CSF leak, were compared between three different groups: (1) hair shaving craniotomies + transdermal polypropylene suture/staples for scalp closure, (2) hair-sparing craniotomies + transdermal polypropylene suture/staples for scalp closure, and (3) hair-sparing craniotomies + absorbable intradermal barbed suture for scalp closure. RESULTS: Two hundred sixty-three patients underwent hair shaving + transdermal polypropylene suture/staples, 83 underwent hair sparing + transdermal polypropylene suture/staples, and 100 underwent hair sparing + absorbable intradermal barbed suture. Overall, 2.9% of patients experienced a perioperative complication and 4.3% developed a wound complication. In multivariable analysis, the use of a barbed suture for scalp closure and hair-sparing techniques was not predictive of any complication or 30-day readmission. Furthermore, the absorbable intradermal barbed suture cohort had the lowest overall rate of wound complications (4%). CONCLUSIONS: Hair-sparing techniques using absorbable intradermal barbed suture for scalp closure are safe and do not result in higher rates of infection, readmission, or reoperation when compared with traditional methods.
BACKGROUND: Hair-sparing techniques in cranial neurosurgery have gained traction in recent years and previous studies have shown no difference in infection rates, yet limited data exists evaluating the specific closure techniques utilized during hair-sparing craniotomies. Therefore, it was the intention of this study to evaluate the rate of surgical site infections (SSIs) and perioperative complications associated with using an absorbable intradermal barbed suture for skin closure in hair-sparing supratentorial craniotomies for tumor in order to prove non-inferiority to traditional methods. METHODS: A retrospective review of supratentorial craniotomies for tumor by a single surgeon from 2011 to 2017 was performed. All perioperative adverse events and wound complications, defined as a postoperative infection, wound dehiscence, or CSF leak, were compared between three different groups: (1) hair shaving craniotomies + transdermal polypropylene suture/staples for scalp closure, (2) hair-sparing craniotomies + transdermal polypropylene suture/staples for scalp closure, and (3) hair-sparing craniotomies + absorbable intradermal barbed suture for scalp closure. RESULTS: Two hundred sixty-three patients underwent hair shaving + transdermal polypropylene suture/staples, 83 underwent hair sparing + transdermal polypropylene suture/staples, and 100 underwent hair sparing + absorbable intradermal barbed suture. Overall, 2.9% of patients experienced a perioperative complication and 4.3% developed a wound complication. In multivariable analysis, the use of a barbed suture for scalp closure and hair-sparing techniques was not predictive of any complication or 30-day readmission. Furthermore, the absorbable intradermal barbed suture cohort had the lowest overall rate of wound complications (4%). CONCLUSIONS: Hair-sparing techniques using absorbable intradermal barbed suture for scalp closure are safe and do not result in higher rates of infection, readmission, or reoperation when compared with traditional methods.
Authors: S Koide; N R Smoll; J Liew; K Smith; A Rizzitelli; M W Findlay; D J Hunter-Smith Journal: J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg Date: 2015-03-24 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Sebastian V Demyttenaere; Peter Nau; Matthew Henn; Catherine Beck; Jeffrey Zaruby; Michael Primavera; David Kirsch; Jeffrey Miller; James J Liu; Andrew Bellizzi; W Scott Melvin Journal: Surg Innov Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 2.058
Authors: Bhuvaneswari Krishnamoorthy; Niamh Shepherd; William R Critchley; Janesh Nair; Nehru Devan; Abdul Nasir; James B Barnard; Rajamiyer V Venkateswaran; Paul D Waterworth; James E Fildes; Nizar Yonan Journal: Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg Date: 2015-11-20
Authors: Seven Johannes Sam Aghdassi; Christin Schröder; Petra Gastmeier Journal: Antimicrob Resist Infect Control Date: 2019-06-03 Impact factor: 4.887
Authors: Daniel G Eichberg; Ashish H Shah; Evan M Luther; Ingrid Menendez; Andrea Jimenez; Maggy Perez-Dickens; Kristine H O'Phelan; Michael E Ivan; Ricardo J Komotar; Allan D Levi Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 4.654