ArticleSurgical neurology international2025
Bone cement versus bone flap replacement: A comparative meta-analysis of posterior fossa craniotomy complications.
Article in Surgical neurology international, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Posterior fossa surgeries are often performed to treat infratentorial pathologies, such as tumors that increase intracranial pressure. Posterior fossa craniotomy has been shown to decrease the incidence of postoperative complications and morbidity compared to craniectomy. More recently, the use of bone cement in posterior fossa craniotomies has been implemented, but there is limited comparative postoperative data of this technique to more commonly used bone flap replacement. This study aims to address this information gap through a meta-analysis comparing the incidence of postoperative cerebrospinal fluid leakage and other complications when utilizing bone cement versus bone flap replacement in posterior fossa craniotomies. Methods: Following a literature review, search parameters for a systematic review were identified and relevant studies were sorted based on selection criteria to be included in the meta-analysis. Data analysis was performed in R studio and Microsoft Excel software. Targeted complications for analysis include cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage, pseudomeningocele formation, and infection. Pooled estimates and odds ratios for dichotomous outcomes were calculated with corresponding 95% confidence intervals, and findings were translated into illustrative tables and figures. Results: Twenty-one articles were included in a systematic review, nine studies using bone cement and thirteen using bone flap (two studies reported data for both groups). With bone flap replacement, CSF leakage was 8.36% (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.89-10.86%), pseudomeningocele formation was 9.22% (95% CI 4.82-13.62%), and infection was 6.85% (95% CI 4.05-9.65%). With bone cement usage, CSF leakage was 3.47% (95% CI 2.37-4.57%), pseudomeningocele formation was 2.43% (95% CI 1.23-3.63%), and infection was 1.85% (95% CI 0.75-2.95%). The odds ratio of CSF leak, pseudomeningocele formation, and infection was 0.39 (95% CI 0.229-0.559), 0.25 (95% CI 0.137-0.353), and 0.26 (95% CI 0.149-0.363), respectively, with the use of bone cement compared to craniotomy. Conclusion: Outcomes demonstrated in this meta-analysis revealed an overall decreased incidence of postoperative complications rates of CSF leak, pseudomeningocele formation, and infection when using bone cement compared to bone flap in posterior fossa craniotomies. Our study suggests that bone cement use is safe and effective in posterior fossa surgery. Future studies should further assess the comparative outcomes of these techniques.
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.