SynthesisScientific reports2024
Skull base reconstruction using hydroxyapatite and nasoseptal flap versus nasoseptal flap alone: meta-analysis and systematic review.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Endoscopic endonasal surgery (EES) is widely employed for interventions in skull base. Despite advancements in surgical techniques, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage remains a significant concern. The introduction of nasoseptal flap (NSF) dramatically reduced the CSF leakage rates, yet reconstruction techniques continue to vary among institutions and lack standardization. Recently, injectable hydroxyapatite (HA), traditionally used in open skull base reconstruction, has been adapted for use in EES. This study compares the effectiveness of HA and NSF reconstruction with the standard multilayer NSF reconstruction alone. We searched for eligible studies in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. CSF leakage rates and reconstruction-associated complication rates were thoroughly evaluated. We initially reviewed 3650 records, narrowing down to 13 articles for full-text examination. Of these, 3 retrospective cohort studies met our inclusion criteria, comparing outcomes of HA combined with NSF to NSF alone. The HA plus NSF group tended to exhibit lower rates of CSF leakage compared to the NSF alone group. Similarly, the rate of reconstruction-associated complication was also lower in the HA plus NSF group than in the control group. Skull base reconstruction using HA and NSF can be an effective way to minimize CSF leakage without major 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.