Objective Duraplasty can be performed both by means of autologous tissues (such as galea-pericranium, temporal muscle, fascia lata) or by commercially available dural patches. Nowadays many neurosurgeons consider galea-pericranium duraplasty time-consuming, technically demanding or not adequate, thus dural surrogates are increasingly popular. In this prospective research we compared duraplasty using autologous galea-pericranium vs. dural patches in terms of postoperative long term results, ease/time required and costs. Patients and methods Research has been designed as prospective cohort study, that included 185 patients undergoing supratentorial elective neurosurgery with galea-pericranium or non-autologous duraplasty (minimum follow-up 12 months). Variables taken into account were: wound infection, CSF fistula, subcutaneous CSF collection, bone flap osteitis, brain abscess, empyema and tardive wound dehiscence (particularly after postoperative radiotherapy). Time for galea-pericranium collection, size of galea-pericranium harvest and dural defects were recorded in each case. Costs for non-autologous duroplasty were calculated. Results No statistically significant differences were evident in long term postoperative results between the two groups. Mean time of galea-pericranium collection is less than 2 min and enough galea-pericranium can be harvested in supratentorial approach to cover almost any dural defect. The only difference between the two groups is costs: an average of 268.7€/patient spent just for duraplasty. This figure is surely substantial if considered for the entire amount of surgeries performed in a department. Conclusions Considering that in our study long term results are equivalent, that galea-pericranium duraplasty is feasible and rapid, our indications are in favor of saving a considerable amount of money since an ideal autologous dural substitute is available and "free". © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
- Dural graft
- Dural substitutes