ArticleFrontiers in surgery2022
Absorbable Artificial Dura Versus Nonabsorbable Artificial Dura in Decompressive Craniectomy for Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: A Retrospective Cohort Study in Two Centers.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Autograft vs. Xenograft Duraplasty Using the Onlay Technique in Pediatric Posterior Fossa Tumor Surgery: A Comparative Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Human Amniotic Membrane for Dural Repair and Duraplasty: A Systematic Review of Safety and Efficacy.Cureus · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients usually need decompressive craniectomy (DC) to decrease intracranial pressure. Duraplasty is an important step in DC with various dura substitute choices. This study aims to compare absorbable dura with nonabsorbable dura in duraplasty for severe TBI patients. Methods: One hundred and three severe TBI patients who underwent DC and dura repair were included in this study. Thirty-nine cases used absorbable artificial dura (DuraMax) and 64 cases used nonabsorbable artificial dura (NormalGEN). Postoperative complications, mortality and Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) score in one year were compared in both groups. Results: Absorbable dura group had higher complication rates in transcalvarial cerebral herniation (TCH) (43.59% in absorbable dura group vs. 17.19% in nonabsorbable dura group, Conclusions: In terms of artificial biological dura, nonabsorbable dura is superior to absorbable dura in treatment of severe TBI patients with DC. Suturable nonabsorbable dura has fewer complications of TCH and CFS leakage, and manifest lower mortality and better prognosis. Postoperative TCH is an important complication in severe TBI which usually leads to a poor prognosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.