Research Article Open Access
Volume 1 | Issue 3 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.33696/Orthopaedics.1.013

Incidental Spinal Durotomies Noted During Spinal Surgery: Incidence and Management

  • 1Royal London Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, Whitechapel Road, London, UK
  • 2Medway Maritime Hospital, Medway Foundation Trust, Windmill Road, Gillingham, Kent, ME7 5NY, UK
  • 3The Walton Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Lower Lane, Fazakerley, Liverpool, Merseyside L9 7LJ, UK
+ Affiliations - Affiliations

*Corresponding Author

Urpinder Singh Grewal, urpinder.grewal@nhs.net

Received Date: August 05, 2020

Accepted Date: October 12, 2020


Purpose: Postoperative management of incidental durotomy in spinal operations is not standardized; evidence-based standardization with particular regard to mobility status is overdue. The aim of this study was to assess the incidence of dural tears and the outcomes of different postoperative mobilization protocols with regards to cerebrospinal fluid leak rate.

Methods: A retrospective analysis of all spinal surgery over a four-year period at one institution. A review of operation, and case notes to assess the intra- and post-operative management of patients suffering a dural tear and their outcomes.

Results: 3361 patients underwent invasive spinal intervention over four years. The age range was 17 to 94. The dural tear rate was higher in lumbar surgery (7.8%) compared with cervical (1.4%) and thoracic (3.8%); (p=0.000) and also in revision surgery (13.5%) compared with primary (4.8%) (p=0.000). When looking at all dural tears there was no significant difference in outcome between varying methods of dural repair and no repair at all (p=0.790). The persistent leak rate was higher in those kept in bed (17.2%) compared to those mobilised immediately (10.5%), this wasn’t statistically significant (p=0.320). Tears occurred in 42 lumbar microdiscectomies; 93% were mobilised immediately and 79% had no dural repair, one patient developed a persistent leak. There was no difference between different repairs (p=0.964) and mobilization regimes (p=0.929). In patients undergoing bony lumbar decompression, there was a difference between suture repair of the dura (9.5%) and non-suture (18%), this was not significant (p=0.304).

Conclusions: We advocate that patients who suffer an intra-operative dural tear should be mobilised immediately. In minimally invasive surgery such as microdiscectomy a watertight layered closure is sufficient, however, tears occurring during more invasive decompression procedures should all undergo a primary suture repair.


Incidental spinal durotomy, Spinal surgery, Complication rates


An incidental durotomy or dural tear is defined by ICD- 10 as an accidental puncture or laceration of dura during a procedure [1]. These procedures include spinal surgery [2] and interventional procedures such as epidural injection [3]. The published incidence of incidental durotomy varies in the literature and is dependent on the procedure being performed, the experience of the surgeon, and patient factors but can range from 1% to 17% [4]. The consequences of a dural tear to a patient can vary from nil to patient death; for example, if cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) infection [5] leads to sepsis [6]. The most common manifestations of dural tear to the patient are headache, and symptoms of meningism, which are usually self-limiting [7]. They are caused by a drop in CSF pressure leading to caudal displacement of the intracranial contents [8]. The dural tear itself is usually healed within 10 days [9], unless a persistent leak develops usually indicating a CSF fluid fistula, which may result in a pseudomeningocele [10]. It is also the second most frequently named occurrence in medical practice cases involving surgery of the lumbar spine [11].

The purpose of our study was to evaluate the incidence of incidental durotomies in our practice over a 4-year period, and to clarify outcomes and differences in management.

The principles of dural tear treatment has changed very little over the course of the last four decades. This consists of a primary repair; testing via trendenlenburg; watertight layered closure of muscle and fascia; and keeping the patient supine on bed rest for 4-7 days [12]. Recent literature advises similar practice [4,13-16].

The prolonged recumbent period itself leads to increased risk of complications such as venous thromboembolic event [17] and infection, as well as increased cost either to patient or hospital dependent on how treatment is financed. This is critically important as immediate mobilization has the potential for great benefits to both patient and hospital provider.


A retrospective study of all patients who underwent invasive surgical spinal intervention in a single centre recorded on MD Analyze system (Medtech Global, Australia) from January 2007 to December 2010. MD Analyze is an integrated surgical audit and outcomes database that provides prospective data tracking from diagnosis to final outcome; and allows retrospective audit. A keyword search was performed for operation name/ description to identify all spinal cases. The operation notes were then searched for several keywords to identify cases in which durotomy occurred. These operation notes were then individually reviewed to ascertain which of these were incidental durotomies. A case note review was then performed to obtain the demographic and details of surgery. Specifically, the age and gender of the patients, whether surgery was elective or emergent; primary or revision; and what, if any repair was performed. Also assessed from the case notes, was the post-operative management; the length of hospital stay; any persistent leak or other complications; and any additional intervention required. The department was made up of twelve consultants, whilst they all had varying levels of experience all had been trained by the same senior consultant.

To ensure that ages of patients were taken at a standardized point; age recorded for purposes of the study were that at the day of surgery. Electivity of surgery was defined by planned admission via waiting list. Method of repair was classified simply as glue; suture or both. Complications accepted were documented persistent leak; pseudomeningocele or evidence of deep infection. Surgical site infection in the absence of CSF leak or MRI confirmed deep infection was not counted as a complication. Low pressure headache requiring no additional intervention was not counted as a complication as it was difficult to accurately quantify retrospectively and is somewhat subjective. Additional intervention was classified as any post-operative additional sutures; drains or revision surgery.

Statistical analysis of the data was then performed to assess the incidences of dural tears in various groups and compare outcomes by Fisher’s Exact Test or Pearson Chi- Square Test.


3361 patients underwent invasive spinal intervention over four years. The age of patients ranged from 17 to 94 and was normally distributed. The median patient age was 53 years old. Of the 3361 interventions, 33.3% (1120 patients) were at the cervical level, 58% (1951 patients) at the lumbar level, and 8.6% (290 patients) at the thoracic level (Table 1). The vast majority were primary procedures, with under 6% revision procedures (Table 2). The incidence of dural tear was noted to be 5.3% (Table 3).

  Frequency Percent
  Valid Cervical 1120 33.3
Lumbar 1951 58.0
Thoracic 290 8.6
Total 3361 100.0

Table 1: Spinal operations performed at each vertebral level.

  Frequency Percent
  Valid Primary 3168 94.3
Revision 193 5.7
Total 3361 100.0

Table 2: Primary vs Revision procedure frequency.

  Frequency Percent
  Valid No 3182 94.7
Yes 179 5.3
Total 3361 100.0

Table 3: Frequency of intra-operative dural tears.

The dural tear rate in revision procedures was found to be 13.5% vs 4.8% in primary procedures, this was statistically significant with a p value of 0.005 by Fisher’s Exact Test (Table 4). The rate of dural tear varied dependent on level operated on with cervical surgery the lowest at 1.4%, followed by thoracic 3.8% and the highest rate was 7.8% in lumbar surgery. This was statistically significant by Pearson Chi-Square Test with a p value of 0.005 (Table 4).

Risk Factor % Dural Tear Value
Primary Procedure 4.8%   0.005
Revision Procedure 13.5%
Cervical Level 1.4%   0.005
Thoracic Level 3.8%
Lumbar Level 7.8%

Table 4: Dural tear rate in procedures compared.

Repair * CSF leak Crosstabulation
  CSF leak   Total
  Repair Glue 37 7 44
Glue & Suture 20 2 22
No repair 54 6 60
Suture 7 1 8
Total 118 16 134

Table 5: Complication Rate in Different Methods of Dural Repair.

Having established that the incidence of dural tear was most common in revision and lumbar procedures, we then analysed the difference in outcome dependent on intraand post-operative management. Of the 179 patients who suffered a tear intra-operatively, the complete case notes were retrieved for 134.

Intra-operatively 32.8% (44 patients) of the patients had glue alone of varying brands applied, 16.4% (22 patients) had a dural repair with glue and suture. Only 5.97% (8 patients) had a suture repair. 44.8% (60 patients) had no repair of the dura. No patients had patch repairs, or drains inserted.

Post-operatively out of 134 patients; 29 were kept on bedrest from periods of 24-120 hours, the other 105 were mobilized immediately, for the purposes of this study that was regarded as within 24 hours from surgery. The delayed mobilization group had a higher leak rate with 17.2% developing post-operative leaks, while only 10.5% of the immediately mobilized group had a persistent leak (Table 6). This was not a statistically significant difference (p=0.320).

MOBILISATION * CSF leak Crosstabulation
  CSF leak   Total
% within 82.8% 17.2% 100.0%
  IMMEDIATE Count 94 11 105
% within 89.5% 10.5% 100.0%
  Total Count 118 16 134
% within 88.1% 11.9% 100.0%

Table 6: Leak rate in immediately mobilized compared with delayed mobilization.

Of the patients suffering dural tear intra-operatively 11.9% went on to develop a complication of persistent CSF leak and 9.7% required further intervention to stop this. The percentage developing persistent leaks varied from 15.9% in those glued alone, 9% in those glued and sutured, 12.5% in those sutured alone, and 10% in those with no direct dural repair. All patients had watertight layered closure of the layers above the dura. There was no significant difference (p=0.790) in occurrence of persistent CSF leak between differing methods of closure or indeed no closure at all (Table 5).

We then analysed the lumbar spinal operations individually. As mentioned previously this was by far the most common level for dural tears to occur. 152 tears were recorded intra-operatively to have occurred at this level and the complete case notes were retrieved for 113 of these. Once more it was seen that there was no significant difference between complications and method of intraoperative repair. Those repaired with glue alone had a 15% complication rate, 5% in those repaired with glue and suture, 14% in those sutured alone and 9% in those undergoing no direct dural repair (Table 7).

  Repair CSF Leak Total
No Yes  
Glue 29 5 34
Glue + Suture 17 1 18
Suture 6 1 7
No Repair 49 5 54
Total 101 12 113

Table 7: CSF leak complications in lumbar spine surgery depending on method of dural repair.

Once again post-operatively there was no significant difference in outcome between the immediately mobilised (9%) and those kept on bed rest (15%) (Table 8).

MOBILISATION * CSF leak Crosstabulationa
  CSF leak   Total
Total 101 12 113

a. Cervical or Thoracic or Lumbar = Lumbar.

Table 8: Leak rate in immediately mobilized compared with delayed mobilization.

Finally, we subdivided the lumbar surgery into those patients who had a dural tear during micro-discectomies, and those who had tear during more invasive procedures involving boney decompression.

Of the 42 microdiscectomies who suffered a dural tear, only 1 developed a complication (persistent CSF leak). 93% of these were mobilised immediately, and 79% had no formal dural repair. There was no significant difference in outcome between the different repairs or mobilization regimes. Of the 71 patients who suffered a tear during more invasive procedures, once more there was no significant difference between method of repair or mobilization. There was, however, a difference between those who were sutured (9.5%) and those who weren’t (18%) this did not reach statistical significance (p=0.304) (Table 9).

Suture * CSF leak Crosstabulationa
  CSF leak   Total
  Suture NO 41 9 50
YES 19 2 21
Total 60 11 71

a. Cervical or Thoracic or Lumbar = Lumbar.

Table 9: Leak rate in immediately mobilized compared with delayed mobilization.


Our dural tear incidence was comparable with that shown in a prospective UK multicenter trial which also revealed that surgeons generally underestimate the regularity with which these occur [18]. Given the aforementioned regularity of these in medicolegal cases, it is imperative that patients are accurately consented pre-operatively [11].

We were able to confirm what has been previously shown that the frequency of dural tears is higher in revision procedures when compared with primary procedures [16,19-21]. The rate of dural tear was seen to be higher in lumbar spine surgery and the cervical tear rate of 1.4% in our cohort is comparable with the 1% rate seen in the series reported by Hannallah et al. [22].

Of greater importance was the finding that delayed mobilization and primary repair which was initially suggested by Eismont et al. in a series of only 5 patients is not as important as once believed [12]. Most large studies since then have also advocated mandatory bed rest and primary repair with glue, suture, patch or a combination [4,14-16,23]. The importance of primary repair is felt to be so great that methods have been described for performing primary suture repair during microdiscectomy as this is technically difficult to achieve [24]. There have been some small studies which have looked at early mobilization following dural tear and have all reported good results, these have, however, been relatively small [25,26]. Khan et al. instigated a protocol of early mobilization and deemed this to be safe and effective in the treatment of dural tears [13].

Ours is the first study which has directly compared early versus delayed mobilization and differing methods of repair albeit retrospectively. The results clearly show there is no benefit of mandatory bed rest following dural tear, and a despite not reaching statistical significance it would appear to show that prolonged bed rest would actually appear to be detrimental and increase the risk of persistent CSF leak complications. Also, we can see that in cases of minimally invasive spinal surgery a good, watertight layered closure is sufficient without the need for direct dural repair.

Finally, in cases which are more invasive and bony decompression has been performed there would appear to be a benefit from direct primary suture repair of the tear. Despite not reaching statistical significance it would also appear to show that the use of glue is not a substitute for direct suturing of the dura.

Our study followed up patients for up to one year postoperatively; after this no patients presented within the 4-year time year period with later complications. It is also unlikely that patients within the study could have presented to other hospitals as geographically this was the only neurosurgical centre in the entire region.

However there remains very little data on the longterm sequelae of dural tears as a result of spinal surgical procedures. Therefore, further studies are required to assess long term outcomes following dural tears. For example, a retrospective study of patients with incidental durotomy at 10-year follow-up found that they had worse clinical outcomes in comparison to a control group [27]. In contrast four other comparable series to this study 189 incidental durotomies were investigated with a follow-up period from weeks to less than 5 years and no sequelae were found when the patients were treated successfully for incidental durotomies [6,12,15,28]. Therefore, further studies should aim to identify prevalence of long-term sequelae and their dependence on the method of dural tear repair and mobilization status.

Currently there is no true consensus regarding the treatment of incidental durotomies; with treatment widely varying on a surgeon by surgeon basis. Treatment modalities include primary repair with sutures, glue, muscle, fat or fascial grafts, blood or fibrin patches. Future trials should aim to randomize patients with incidental durotomies into treatment categories and then further randomize to immediate or delayed mobilization. Such trials would perhaps provide statistical clarity with regards to the gold standard treatment of incidental durotomies and mobilization status.

Limitations of this study include a limited follow-up range, absence of clinical assessment with a validated score and surgeon-to-surgeon procedural variability.


We would advocate that patients experiencing dural tear intra-operatively can be mobilized immediately and a primary suture repair of all tears occurring as a result of invasive spinal surgery is undertaken. We also believe that in minimally invasive procedures, a good layered closure is adequate and there is no benefit to technically difficult suture repair.

There are significant discrepancies between our findings and the commonly practiced approach to warrant a prospective multi-centre trial assessing early versus delayed mobilization.

Conflicts of Interest

All authors declare they have no conflicts of interest.



This study received no funding.

Ethical Statement

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


1. ICD 10

2. Bosacco SJ, Gardner MJ, Guille JT. Evaluation and treatment of dural tears in lumbar spine surgery: a review. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®. 2001 Aug 1;389:238-47.

3. Manchikanti L, Malla Y, Wargo BW, Cash KA, Pampati V, Fellows B. A prospective evaluation of complications of 10,000 fluoroscopically directed epidural injections. Pain Physician. 2012 Mar;15:131-40.

4. Guerin P, El Fegoun AB, Obeid I, Gille O, Lelong L, Luc S, et al. Incidental durotomy during spine surgery: incidence, management and complications. A retrospective review. Injury. 2012 Apr 1;43(4):397-401.

5. Koo J, Adamson R, Wagner Jr FC, Hrdy DB. A new cause of chronic meningitis: infected lumbar pseudomeningocele. The American Journal of Medicine. 1989;86(1):103-4.

6. Jones AA, Stambough JL, Balderston RA, Rothman RH, Booth Jr RE. Long-term results of lumbar spine surgery complicated by unintended incidental durotomy. Spine. 1989 Apr 1;14(4):443-6.

7. Marshall LF. Cerebrospinal fluid leaks: etiology and repair. In: Herkowitz HN (ed),The spine. Philadelphia. 1992; pp 1892-9.

8. Vakharia SB, Thomas PS, Rosenbaum AE, Wasenko JJ, Fellows DG. Magnetic resonance imaging of cerebrospinal fluid leak and tamponade effect of blood patch in postdural puncture headache. Anesthesia and Analgesia. 1997 Mar;84:585-90.

9. Cain Jr. JE, Lauerman WC, Rosenthal HG, Broom MJ, Jacobs RR. The Histomorphologic Sequence of Dural Repair?: Observations in the Canine Model. Spine. 1991 Aug 1;16(8):S324.

10. McCormack BM, Zide BM, Kalfa IH. Cerebrospinal fluid fistula and pseudomeningocele after spine surgery. In: Benzel EC (ed) Spine surgery: techniques, complication avoidance and management. Churchill Livingston, Philadelphia, 1999; pp 1465-74.

11. Goodkin R, Laska LL. Unintended “incidental” durotomy during surgery of the lumbar spine: medicolegal implications. Surgical Neurology. 1995 Jan 1;43(1):4-14.

12. Eismont FJ, Wiesel SW, Rothman RH. Treatment of dural tears associated with spinal surgery. JBJS. 1981 Sep 1;63(7):1132-6.

13. Khan MH, Rihn J, Steele G, Davis R, Donaldson III WF, Kang JD, et al. Postoperative management protocol for incidental dural tears during degenerative lumbar spine surgery: a review of 3,183 consecutive degenerative lumbar cases. Spine. 2006 Oct 15;31(22):2609-13.

14. Wang JC, Bohlman HH, Riew KD. Dural tears secondary to operations on the lumbar spine. Management and results after a two-year-minimum follow-up of eightyeight patients. JBJS. 1998 Dec 1;80(12):1728-32.

15. Wolff S, Kheirredine W, Riouallon G. Surgical dural tears: prevalence and updated management protocol based on 1359 lumbar vertebra interventions. Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research. 2012 Dec 1;98(8):879-86.

16. Kalevski SK, Peev NA, Haritonov DG. Incidental Dural Tears in lumbar decompressive surgery: Incidence, causes, treatment, results. Asian journal of neurosurgery. 2010 Jan;5(1):54-59.

17. Baglin T. Inherited and acquired risk factors for venous thromboembolism. Seminars in Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 2012 Apr;33(02):127-37.

18. Tafazal SI, Sell PJ. Incidental durotomy in lumbar spine surgery: incidence and management. European Spine Journal. 2005 Apr 1;14(3):287-90.

19. McMahon P, Dididze M, Levi AD. Incidental durotomy after spinal surgery: a prospective study in an academic institution: Presented at the 2012 Joint Spine Section Meeting. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine. 2012 Jul 1;17(1):30-6.

20. Baker GA, Cizik AM, Bransford RJ, Bellabarba C, Konodi MA, Chapman JR, et al. Risk factors for unintended durotomy during spine surgery: a multivariate analysis. The Spine Journal. 2012 Feb 1;12(2):121-6.

21. Thomsen F, Amtoft O, Andersen M, Bøge-Rasmussen T, Jensen TT, Jensen LE, et al. Iatrogenic dural lesions in lumbar neural decompressive surgery. Ugeskrift for laeger. 2010 Mar 1;172(9):688-91.

22. Hannallah D, Lee J, Khan M, Donaldson WF, Kang JD. Cerebrospinal fluid leaks following cervical spine surgery. JBJS. 2008 May 1;90(5):1101-5.

23. Senker W, Meznik C, Avian A, Berghold A. The frequency of accidental dural tears in minimally invasive spinal fusion techniques. Journal of Neurological Surgery Part A: Central European Neurosurgery. 2013 Nov;74(06):373-7.

24. Chou D, Wang VY, Khan AS. Primary dural repair during minimally invasive microdiscectomy using standard operating room instruments. Operative Neurosurgery. 2009 May 1;64(suppl_5):ons356-8.

25. Than KD, Wang AC, Etame AB, La Marca F, Park P. Postoperative management of incidental durotomy in minimally invasive lumbar spinal surgery. min-Minimally Invasive Neurosurgery. 2008 Oct;51(05):263-6.

26. Hodges SD, Humphreys SC, Eck JC, Covington LA. Management of incidental durotomy without mandatory bed rest: a retrospective review of 20 cases. Spine. 1999 Oct 1;24(19):2062.

27. Saxler G, Krämer J, Barden B, Kurt A, Pförtner J, Bernsmann K. The long-term clinical sequelae of incidental durotomy in lumbar disc surgery. Spine. 2005 Oct 15;30(20):2298-302.

28. Cammisa Jr FP, Girardi FP, Sangani PK, Parvataneni HK, Cadag S, Sandhu HS. Incidental durotomy in spine surgery. Spine. 2000 Oct 15;25(20):2663-7.

Author Information X