SynthesisNeurosurgical review2025
Potential techniques to facilitate dissection in patients undergoing cranioplasty following decompressive craniectomy.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Optimal timing of cranioplasty post-decompressive craniectomy in traumatic brain injury: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and overview of ongoing trials.Acta neurochirurgica · 2026Pooled it
- Precision dissection strategy for myocutaneous flap in frontotemporal cranioplasty based on tissue biophysical properties.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
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
Decompressive craniectomy is a common neurosurgical procedure for cases of increased intracranial pressure. In patients undergoing cranioplasty, dissection planes are usually difficult to identify due to adhesions. We highlight the possible ways to make dissection easier in cranioplasty. A systematic search was performed on PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase from inception until January 2025 to include studies that reported the possible techniques to mitigate the risk for adhesions following decompressive craniectomy and during cranioplasty. Operative metrics including the surgical time, estimated blood loss, the presence of gross adhesions, integrity of temporalis muscle, and the underlying dura as well as the primary pathology and the post-operative complications were extracted. Overall, 22 studies involving a total of 570 patients were included. Stroke was the primary pathology in 253 (54.6%) patients. The time between craniectomies and cranioplasties ranged from 10 days to several years. Different techniques were employed to reduce the risk for adhesion formation. A total of 99 out of 479 (20.5%) experienced postoperative complications following cranioplasty procedures. Epidural or subdural fluid collections were the most common complication, affecting 40 patients (8.6%), followed closely by wound infections in 39 patients (8.1%). Dural tears were reported in 10 patients (2%), while cortical injuries occurred in 6 patients (1.2%). Several materials have been used for duraplasty following decompressive craniectomy, with the aim of reducing adhesions and facilitating subsequent cranioplasty. Additionally, waterjet dissection has been proposed as a potential technique for safer tissue separation, but its safety profile and efficacy require further investigation. The evidence from these studies remains inconclusive and requires further investigation in large scale randomized controlled trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40208357What 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.