ArticleActa neurochirurgica2024
Cranial stair-step incision for minimizing postoperative complications in neuro-oncologic surgery: A propensity score-matched analysis.
Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 2024. 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.
- Modified Dandy Stair-Step Incision for Retrosigmoid Craniotomies to Reduce Postoperative Complications in Skull Base Surgery.Journal of neurological surgery. Part B, Skull base · 2026Article
- Resection of sphenoid wing meningioma with blood pressure augmentation reverses acute symptomatic left middle cerebral artery syndrome: illustrative case.Journal of neurosurgery. Case lessons · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCraniotomies for tumor resection can at times result in wound complications which can be devastating in the treatment of neuro-oncological patients. A cranial stair-step technique was recently introduced as an approach to mitigate these complications, especially in this patient population who often exhibit additional risk factors including steroids, chemoradiation, and VEGF inhibitor treatments. This study evaluates our cranial stair-step approach by comparing its postoperative complications using propensity score matching with those of a standard craniotomy wound closure.
methodsA retrospective chart review was conducted on patients with intracranial neoplasms undergoing primary craniotomy at a single institution. Patients with prior craniotomies and less than three months of follow-up were excluded. Analyses were performed using R Studio.
results383 patients were included in the study, 139 of whom underwent the stair-step technique while the rest underwent traditional craniotomy closures. The stair-step cohort was older, had higher ASA classes, and had a higher prevalence of coronary artery disease. The stair-step patients were administered fewer steroids before (40.29% vs. 56.56%, p < 0.01) and after surgery (87.05% vs. 94.26%, p = 0.02), fewer immunotherapy (12.95% vs. 20.90%, p = 0.05), but they received more radiation preoperatively (15.11% vs. 8.61%, p = 0.05). They also underwent fewer operations for recurrences and residuals (0.72% vs. 10.66%, p = 0.01). On propensity score matching, we found 111 matched pairs with no differences except follow-up duration (p < 0.01). The stair-step group had fewer soft tissue infections (0% vs. 3.60%, p = 0.04), fewer total wound complications (0% vs. 4.50%, p = 0.02), was operated on less for these complications (0% vs. 3.60%, p = 0.04), and had a shorter length of stay (6 vs. 9 days, p < 0.01). Notably, the average time to wound complication in our cohort was 44 days, well within our exclusion criteria and follow-up duration.
conclusionThe cranial stair-step technique is safe and effective in reducing rates of wound complications and reoperation for neuro-oncologic patients requiring craniotomy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39046560What 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.