Collagen Matrix (DuraGen) in Dural Repair: Analysis of a New Modified Technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of 110 patients undergoing spinal dural repair and regeneration using an onlay, suture-free, 3-dimensional-collagen matrix graft (DuraGen) over an 8-year period (1995-2003). OBJECTIVES: Technique appraisal of collagen matrix to repair spinal dura following incidental durotomy, spinal tumor surgery, and trauma. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Traditional methods of spinal dural repair following incidental durotomy involve tedious attempts at primary watertight suture with a 5% to 10% failure rate. Dural injury occurs after trauma, or dural excision may be required after tumor resection. Collagen matrix is a newer development in collagen sponge. METHODS: The clinical and demographic data included diagnosis, type and site of surgery, infection risk, size of defect, use of lumbar drains, closed suction subfascial drains, and adverse events. The primary endpoints of graft failure were cerebrospinal fluid leak and pseudomeningocele formation. Neurosurgical wound infection rates were determined. RESULTS: Collagen matrix was used (n = 110) in the following conditions: degenerative (69), pseudomeningocele formation repair (4), tumors (14), trauma (13), and congenital (5). There were 15 cervical (10 anterior), 21 thoracic (3 anterior), and 71 lumbar (all posterior) surgeries. Fibrin glue was used in 7.3%, subfascial drains in 82%, and lumbar drainage in 2.7%. Overall, cerebrospinal fluid leaks occurred in 2.7%. The 2 pseudomeningocele formations (3.2%) resolved at 3 months. There were 2 wound infections. In the subgroup with incidental durotomy (n = 69), failure of cerebrospinal fluid containment occurred in 4.3% [1 cerebrospinal fluid leak (1.4%), 2 pseudomeningocele formations (2.9%)]. CONCLUSIONS: Collagen matrix was successful in cerebrospinal fluid containment in > 95% of patients requiring dural repair following anterior and posterior spinal surgery. Subfascial drains were safe. Routine lumbar drains are not required but are recommended for repair of established pseudomeningocele formations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".