Evaluation of complication rates of pediatric cranial procedures in which a polyethylene glycol sealant was used

Xin Zhou, C. Rory Goodwin, Pablo F. Recinos, Jesse X. Yang, George I. Jallo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Object. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) sealant in conjunction with standard closure techniques is effective in preventing CSF leaks after cranial procedures in adult patients, but the safety of PEG sealant in the pediatric population has not been shown. Methods. The authors performed a retrospective analysis of pediatric neurosurgery patients (0-18 years of age) treated from 2005 to 2010 at The Johns Hopkins Hospital. There were 163 patients who underwent cranial surgery with the use of PEG sealant as an adjunct to standard closure techniques. There were 92 males and 71 females with an average age of 10.2 years. The incidences of revision surgery, CSF leak, meningitis, and neurological deficit were recorded. Results. In the cohort's 90-day postoperative clinical course, the authors found that 4 patients (2.5%) required revision surgery, 2 patients (1.2%) developed a CSF leak, 4 patients (2.5%) developed a superficial skin infection, and 1 patient developed meningitis (0.6%) with no deaths or neurological deficits observed. Conclusions. PEG sealant appears to be a safe adjunct to standard dural closure in pediatric cranial surgery patients to augment dural closure.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)514-517
Number of pages4
JournalJournal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics
Volume14
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2014

Keywords

  • CSF leak
  • Dural sealants
  • Durotomy
  • Infection
  • Pediatric cranial procedures
  • Polyethylene glycol sealant
  • Technique

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health
  • Clinical Neurology

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Evaluation of complication rates of pediatric cranial procedures in which a polyethylene glycol sealant was used'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this