ArticleJournal of cerebrovascular and endovascular neurosurgery2025
Reducing complications in duraplasty with autologous dural graft material: A meta-analysis.
Article in Journal of cerebrovascular and endovascular neurosurgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A rare case of near-complete resolution of extensive cervicothoracic syrinx following bilateral cerebellar tonsillar resection in Chiari malformation type I.Radiology case reports · 2026Article
- A comparative analysis of early postoperative outcomes of autologous pericranium versus high-density polypropylene in cranial duraplasty in a tertiary care center in Central India.Chinese neurosurgical journal · 2026Article
- A Case Report of Postoperative Cystic Hydrocephalus Following Duroplasty and Scalp Reconstruction in Neonatal With Aplasia Cutis Congenita and Extensive Craniodural Defect.Case reports in surgery · 2026Article
- Tandem Detethering: A Novel One-Stage Approach Combining Cervicothoracic Cord Release Followed by Filum Terminale Sectioning.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis review aims to perform qualitative and quantitative analysis to determine which dural graft materials are preferable for neurosurgical patients.
methodsA literature search using the PubMed database was conducted to collect relevant articles that compared complications associated with autologous and non-autologous dural grafts. The extracted data included graft type and related complications. Screening of all studies was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Statistical tests were conducted using Microsoft Excel to compare categorical variables, and data analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4.1.
resultsA total of twelve studies were deemed eligible from 1,646 articles. These studies included 1,877 patients; 965 (51.4%) received autologous grafts and 912 (48.6%) received non-autologous grafts. Pooled data from autologous grafts showed significant reductions in meningitis (OR=0.31; 95% CI 0.17-0.54), pseudomeningocele (OR=0.50; 95% CI 0.32-0.79), and wound infection rates (OR=0.34; 95% CI 0.14-0.80) compared to the non-autologous group. There were no significant differences in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage, hydrocephalus, or revision surgery rates.
conclusionsAutologous dural grafts are more effective compared to non-autologous grafts in reducing the incidence of meningitis, pseudomeningocele, and wound infections following duraplasty. However, the risks of CSF leakage, hydrocephalus, and revision surgery are similar for both graft types.
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.