Safety of Early Mobilization in Patients With Intraoperative Cerebrospinal Fluid Leak in Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery: A Case Series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak is a common complication in spine surgery. Repairing durotomy is more difficult in the setting of minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS). Efficacy of postoperative bed rest in case of dural tear in MISS is not clear. OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and efficacy of our protocol of dura closure without changing access, early mobilization, and discharge in cases of intraoperative CSF leak in MISS. METHODS: A retrospective review from 2006 to 2018 of patients who underwent MISS for degenerative and neoplastic diseases with documented accidental or intentional durotomy was conducted. The primary outcome of interest was readmission rate for repair of persistent CSF leak. Secondary outcomes captured included development of pseudomeningocele, positional headache, and subdural hematoma. RESULTS: A total of 80 patients were identified out of 527 patients. Of these, intentional durotomy was performed in 28 patients and unintentional durotomy occurred in 52 patients. Mean follow-up period was 80.6 mo. Most of the patients were discharged on postoperative day 0 (within 4 h of surgery) without activity restrictions. A total of 2 (2.5%) patients required readmission and dural repair for continuous CSF leak and 3 patients (3.75%) developed pseudomeningocele. No lumbar drain insertion, meningitis, or subdural hematoma was reported. CONCLUSION: Early mobilization and discharge in cases of intraoperative CSF leak in MISS appear to be safe and not associated with higher rate of complications than that of reported literature.
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 | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".