ReviewCureus2023
Human Amniotic Membrane for Dural Repair and Duraplasty: A Systematic Review of Safety and Efficacy.
Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dural reconstruction in the literature: A CiteSpace visualized bibliometric analysis.Neurosurgical review · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of human amniotic membrane (HAM) has recently gained attention as a promising alternative option for duraplasty due to its superior tensile strength, elasticity, and anti-inflammatory and anti-fibrotic properties, offering greater durability and reliability compared to autologous grafts like the muscle fascia and pericranium. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the complications associated with duraplasty using HAM. We comprehensively searched the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for studies on duraplasty with HAM. The eligibility criteria included studies on patients who underwent dural repair with duraplasty using HAM, with or without a control group. Duraplasty involves opening the dura mater, the protective covering of the brain and spinal cord, and using a graft to enlarge the space around the cerebellum. Dual repair, on the other hand, involves repairing the dura mater without opening it and then using a patch to enlarge the space around the cerebellum. Randomized controlled trials, observational studies, case series, and case reports were included, and quality assessment was conducted. Our search yielded 191 articles. Ten studies were included, with a total of 560 participants. The overall incidence of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage was three (0.63%) out of 478 in the HAM group and three (4.76%) out of 63 in the other methods group (pericranium, temporalis fascia, and biological dural substitutes). Regarding the incidence of postoperative complications, the overall incidence was eight (1.92%) out of 417 in the HAM group and two (8%) out of 25 in the other methods group. The overall incidence of meningitis was one (0.67%) out of 150 in the HAM group and three (10%) out of 30 in the other methods group. In conclusion, duraplasty using HAM may be a safe and effective alternative to traditional methods, with a low incidence of CSF leakage and postoperative complications.
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.