Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29569970›Full record

ReviewJournal of medical engineering & technology2018

Spinal dura mater: biophysical characteristics relevant to medical device development.

Sean J Nagel, Chandan G Reddy, Leonardo A Frizon, Matthieu K Chardon, Marshall Holland, Andre G Machado, George T Gillies, Matthew A Howard, Saul Wilson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of medical engineering & technology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Tensile properties of human spinal dura mater and pericranium.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Sean J Nagela Center for Neurological Restoration , Cleveland Clinic , Cleveland , OH , USA.
Chandan G Reddyb Department of Neurosurgery , University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics , Iowa City , IA , USA.
Leonardo A Frizona Center for Neurological Restoration , Cleveland Clinic , Cleveland , OH , USA.
Matthieu K Chardonc Department of Physiology , Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine , Chicago , IL , USA.
Marshall Hollandb Department of Neurosurgery , University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics , Iowa City , IA , USA.
Andre G Machadoa Center for Neurological Restoration , Cleveland Clinic , Cleveland , OH , USA.
George T Gilliesd Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering , University of Virginia , Charlottesville , VA , USA.
Matthew A Howardb Department of Neurosurgery , University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics , Iowa City , IA , USA.
Saul Wilsonb Department of Neurosurgery , University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics , Iowa City , IA , USA.

Funding

Northwestern University Clinical and Translational Science Institute (NUCATS)TL1TR001423 · NCATS · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI MCCOLLEY, SUSANNA A · 2015 to 2023
$5.0M
NCATS NIH HHS TL1 TR001423
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Understanding the relevant biophysical properties of the spinal dura mater is essential to the design of medical devices that will directly interact with this membrane or influence the contents of the intradural space. We searched the literature and reviewed the pertinent characteristics for the design, construction, testing, and imaging of novel devices intended to perforate, integrate, adhere or reside within or outside of the spinal dura mater. The spinal dura mater is a thin tubular membrane composed of collagen and elastin fibres that varies in circumference along its length. Its mechanical properties have been well-described, with the longitudinal tensile strength exceeding the transverse strength. Data on the bioelectric, biomagnetic, optical and thermal characteristics of the spinal dura are limited and sometimes taken to be similar to those of water. While various modalities are available to visualise the spinal dura, magnetic resonance remains the best modality to segment its structure. The reaction of the spinal dura to imposition of a foreign body or other manipulations of it may compromise its biomechanical and immune-protective benefits. Therefore, dural sealants and replacements are of particular clinical, research and commercial interest. In conclusion, existing devices that are in clinical use for spinal cord stimulation, intrathecal access or intradural implantation largely adhere to traditional designs and their attendant limitations. However, if future devices are built with an understanding of the dura's properties incorporated more fully into the designs, there is potential for improved performance.

Indexed as

Dura MaterElectric StimulationHumansSpinal CordSpineTensile Strengthbiophysical characteristicsDura materelectric stimulationprostheses and implantsspine surgery

Identifiers

PMID29569970
PMCPMC7053539

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.