ArticleJournal of Korean Neurosurgical Society2025
Efficacy of Anti-Adhesive Substitute and Step-by-Step Techniques in Decompressive Craniectomy and Subsequent Cranioplasty.
Article in Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Precision dissection strategy for myocutaneous flap in frontotemporal cranioplasty based on tissue biophysical properties.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveDural substitutes have been widely used in decompressive craniectomy to prevent adhesion, and have significantly reduced blood loss and operation time. However, there are only limited studies providing information regarding detailed techniques and the specific operation time that is associated with good prognoses. In this study, we evaluate the effectiveness of using a dural substitute as an anti-adhesive material during cranioplasty, focusing on technical details and operation time from incision to bone closure.
methodsA retrospectively reviewed total of 66 patients were included who underwent a craniectomy and subsequent cranioplasty caused by either a severe traumatic brain injury (n=35) or malignant infarction (n=31). The patients were divided into two groups depending on whether Neuro-Patch was used or not (31 in the Neuro-Patch group, 35 in the non-Neuro-Patch group). Propensity score matching was used to minimize the differences. Associated morbidities as well as operation time, and blood loss were analyzed and compared between the two groups.
resultsTo prevent adhesion, Neuro-Patch was placed as an onlay, enough to cover the surrounding skull at least 1 cm beyond the bone edges. A small piece was also placed over the temporalis muscle during the craniectomy. A step-by-step dissection was performed to minimize retraction-related injury during the subsequent cranioplasty. The mean estimated blood loss was significantly lower in the Neuro-Patch group (54.6±34.9 vs. 149.0±70.8 mL, p<0.001) and the mean time from incision to bone closure in the Neuro-Patch group was 40.8±14.3 minutes, which was significantly lower than in the non-Neuro-Patch group (91.5±38.2 minutes) as well. For each analysis of complications, the differences were not significant, however, the overall complication rate was significantly lower in the Neuro-Patch group (9.7%) than in the non-Neuro-Patch group (42.9%).
conclusionNeuro-Patch can be used safely and effectively as an anti-adhesive substitute during cranioplasty. To improve clinical outcomes as well as intraoperative parameters including the time from incision to bone closure, planned placement of Neuro-Patch during craniectomy and the step-by-step dissection during cranioplasty is important.
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.