Table 1: Surgeon responses regarding the use of Cerafix® Dura Substitute.
Survey Item | Count |
Traditional Product(s)a | |
DuraMatrix® | 4 |
DuraGen® | 3 |
AlloDerm™ | 3 |
Bovine pericardium | 2 |
Cerafix® Handling vs. Traditional Product(s)a | |
Easier | 5 |
Same | 2 |
Harder | 0 |
Cerafix® Benefitsa | |
Non-biologic | 5 |
Tensile strength | 4 |
Fully resorbable | 1 |
Non-sided | 1 |
Preparation time | 1 |
Suitable Procedures/Locations for Cerafix®a | |
Supratentorial | 5 |
Skull base/Endoscopic | 3 |
Infratentorial/Posterior fossa | 3 |
Spinal | 3 |
Any dural defect | 2 |
Will you use Cerafix® for future cases?b | |
Yes | 5 |
No | 0 |
Could Cerafix® replace your current product(s)?b | |
Yes | 5 |
No | 0 |
aMultiple answers were acceptable for this question; bOnly one answer was acceptable for this question.