ArticleJournal of neurological surgery reports2025
The Question Mark Question: Wound Healing after Hemicraniectomy.
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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.