ArticleJournal of Korean Neurosurgical Society2025
Comparison of the Lumbar Drain and the Hydroxyapatite Methods for Cerebrospinal Fluid Leakage after Endoscopic Skull Base Surgery.
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. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes and risk of two skull base reconstruction methods after expanded expanded endoscopic approach (EEA), viz. postoperative cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) lumbar drainage (L-method) and injectable hydroxyapatite cement without lumbar drainage (H-method).
methodsWe enrolled 211 consecutive patients with grade 2 or 3 intraoperative CSF leakage during EEA. The most common preoperative diagnoses were pituitary adenoma (n=62, 29%), meningioma (n=50, 24%), and craniopharyngioma (n=28, 13%). Vascularized nasoseptal flaps were used in most cases (98%). We used the L-method and H-method in 83 (39%) and 103 patients (49%), respectively.
resultsThe overall reconstruction-related complication and postoperative CSF leakage rates were 8% (18/211) and 6% (12/211), respectively. The complications included postoperative CSF leakage (n=12), infection (n=4), postoperative optic nerve compression (n=1), and brain herniation (n=1). The postoperative complication and CSF leakage rates did not differ significantly between the L-method (12% and 10%, respectively) and H-method (8% and 4%, respectively) (p=0.326 and 0.112, respectively). Postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter with the H-method (6.9 days) compared to the L-method (10.0 days) (p<0.001). However, the postoperative infection rate of the H-method (n=4) was higher than that of the L-method (n=0; p=0.070).
conclusionSkull base reconstruction using hydroxyapatite effectively prevented postoperative CSF leakage and ensured patient comfort and shorter hospitalization without postoperative lumbar drainage, although postoperative infection requires consideration.
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.