Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40276690›Full record

ArticleJournal of neurological surgery reports2025

The Question Mark Question: Wound Healing after Hemicraniectomy.

Grace R Fassina, Emily E Nguyen, David Cho, Drake J Williams, Alexander R Evans, Panayiotis E Pelargos, Christopher S Graffeo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neurological surgery reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Grace R FassinaDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States.ORCID 0009-0008-3452-1599
Emily E NguyenDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States.
David ChoDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States.
Drake J WilliamsDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States.
Alexander R EvansDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States.ORCID 0009-0005-6002-0083
Panayiotis E PelargosDepartment of Neurosurgery, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, United States.
Christopher S GraffeoDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The reverse question mark (RQM) incision is the conventional scalp flap technique incorporated during decompressive hemicraniectomy (DHC) operations. Recently, the retroauricular (RA) incision emerged as a possible alternative. We sought to assess the contemporary literature regarding postoperative outcomes following RQM or RA for DHC and subsequent cranioplasty. Methods: MEDLINE and Embase databases were queried using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies reporting outcomes after primary DHC and secondary cranioplasty for both RQM and RA were included in a meta-analysis of proportions performed using random-effects modeling. Results: Five manuscripts representing a total of 511 patients met the inclusion criteria. No difference was observed in the rate of primary surgical site infection (SSI) after RQM as compared with RA (OR = 1.64, 95% CI = 0.92-2.92). Similarly, based on those four studies reporting SSI data after cranioplasty, no difference was detected in secondary SSI rates between RQM and RA (OR = 1.93, 95% CI = 0.79-4.72). Patients who underwent primary RQM had increased odds of undergoing cranioplasty compared with patients who had received a primary RA (OR = 1.57, 95% CI = 1.03-2.39). Conclusion: This novel systematic review and meta-analysis reported postoperative outcomes after DHC using either the RQM or RA incision technique. No significant difference was noted in SSI after either the primary decompression or the secondary cranioplasty. These findings support the use of either technique in routine practice, as guided by surgeon preference or other clinical considerations, such as superficial temporal artery preservation for an unrelated future indication.

Indexed as

decompressive hemicraniectomyretroauricularreverse question markwound complications

Identifiers

PMID40276690
PMCPMC12020538

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.