SynthesisNeurosurgical review2025
Cerebrospinal fluid leakage in patients after retrosigmoid approach for tumor resection: systematic review of techniques to manage dural closure and cranial reconstruction.
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, 2 of them syntheses 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Craniotomy versus craniectomy in posterior fossa tumor surgery: A systematic review and Meta-Analysis.Neurosurgical review · 2025Pooled it
- Comparative effectiveness of dural sealants versus conventional dural closure methods in cranial neurosurgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Neurosurgical review · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis systematic review aims to assess the effectiveness of dural and bony reconstruction techniques in preventing cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage following retrosigmoid approaches for tumor resection. It focuses specifically on oncological cases, excluding studies on solely microvascular decompression, to provide targeted insights.
methodThe review followed PRISMA guidelines and included clinical studies published between 2000 and 2024, sourced from MEDLINE/PUBMED and Ovid Embase. Studies focusing on retrosigmoid approaches for tumor resections with detailed reports on dural and cranial reconstruction were selected. A total of 22 studies involving 3,879 cases met the inclusion criteria.
resultsCSF leakage occurred in 7% of cases overall (269 patients), with infection rates at 1.5% (60 patients). Watertight dural closure was achieved in 93% of cases. The use of heterologous patches was common in more than one-third of cases overall (37%), while autologous materials were employed in 33% of cases. Bone cement was used in 21% of cases, and bone wax in 59%. The lowest leakage rates were associated with the use of bone cement and multilayer closure techniques.
conclusionThe review highlights that the combination of heterologous or autologous dural patches with bone cement significantly reduces CSF leakage rates. Simpler techniques without comprehensive reconstruction are associated with higher leakage and infection risks. These findings can inform surgical practices for better outcomes in retrosigmoid approach for tumor resections.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40272603What 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.