4.5 Article

Leukocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin: a new graft material in endoscopic repair of spontaneous CSF leaks

期刊

EUROPEAN ARCHIVES OF OTO-RHINO-LARYNGOLOGY
卷 275, 期 9, 页码 2245-2252

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00405-018-5048-7

关键词

Spontaneous CSF leaks; PRF; Leucocyte-platelet-rich fibrin; CSF rhinorrhea; Idiopathic intracranial hypertension; Endoscopic repair of CSF leak

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Spontaneous CSF leak is a challenging condition, with frequent recurrences following attempted surgical closure. The selection of graft materials depends on the experience of the operating surgeon. Leukocyte-and platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF) is a second-generation platelet concentrate that has currently invaded every surgical specialty. To our knowledge, no previous reports about the use of L-PRF in repair of CSF leak were published. The study was conducted to assess the potential role of L-PRF in spontaneous CSF leaks repair. Methods This prospective controlled study was conducted on 40 patients who were randomly divided into 2 groups: In group A, L-PRF was used in addition to another layer, while patients in group B underwent multilayer repair using traditional graft materials. Results Preoperative HRCT scan showed bony dehiscence (n = 30) and opacity in a nearby sinus (n = 9). MRI findings varied between empty sella in 28 patients, and meningocele in 19 patients. Mean preoperatively measured CSF pressure was 26.6 cm H2O. Cribriform plate was identified as the commonest site of leaks. Multiple skull defects were detected in 2 cases. Failure of repair was found in 3 patients (15%) of group B and 1 patient (5%) of group A, this difference was statistically insignificant (P value = 0.28). Significance correlation between recurrence of CSF leak and elevated intracranial pressure was observed (P value; 0.04). Conclusion L-PRF was found to be a good adjunct material in endoscopic spontaneous CSF leaks repair. It helps in decreasing the number of layers needed for defect closure.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据