ArticleHeliyon2025
Study of absorbable dural sealant to improve complications after craniocerebral surgery and its application strategy and standardized operation procedure.
Article in Heliyon, 2025. 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.
- Comparative evaluation of two dural closure techniques for U-shaped incisions: sealing efficacy vs. site-specific infection risk.Frontiers in surgery · 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Infection after craniocerebral operation has always been a very focused problem, and dural closure can reduce perioperative infection by reducing drainage volume and subcutaneous effusion, so how to effectively perform dural closure seems to be a small but not negligible problem. Methods: We proposed a classification and grading system for dural incisions based on the type and degree of suture, and based on the system, a standardized operation process for ADS (absorbable dural sealant) was developed. Then, we conducted a retrospective study. We divided the included patients into 3 groups. Normalized group follows the ADS standard use process proposed by us, while Empirical group does not meet or only partially meets the ADS standard use process, or uses ADS based on its own experience, and Non-sealant group were patients who did not use ADS. And perioperative infection was used as the primary assessment metric to verify the effectiveness of ADS in blocking the dural membrane, and to try to propose a standardized use plan. Results: A retrospective collection of 383 patients' clinical data was conducted between October 2019 and April 2023 in the Department of Neurosurgery of Qilu Hospital of Shandong University. Of them, 128 belonged to the non-sealant group, 126 to the normalized group, and 129 to the empirical group. In our study, we discovered that, in comparison to the normalized group, postoperative cerebral infection rose by 17.2 % (OR = 2.437, P = 0.004) and 21.9 % (OR = 3.227, P < 0.001), respectively, in the empirical group and non-sealant group. In comparison to the normalized group, the empirical group and non-sealant group experienced a 13.2 % (OR = 1.882, P = 0.037) and 24.8 % (OR = 3.346, P < 0.001) increase in subcutaneous effusion development, respectively. Furthermore, when compared to the normalized group, the empirical group's (β = 48.556, P = 0.003) and non-sealant group's (β = 91.960, P < 0.001) subcutaneous or epidural drainage volume was significantly higher. Conclusions: Correct and standardized use of ADS can improve the watertight suturing of the dura mater and reduce the incidence of postoperative complications such as infection, and is of great significance for perioperative management of neurosurgery.
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.