SynthesisNeurosurgical review2025
Efficacy and safety of endoscopic compared with open surgical repair of cerebrospinal fluid fistulas: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveCerebrospinal fluid leaks or fistulas are a relatively common neurosurgical pathology. Classically, this condition has been managed through an open surgical approach, but endoscopic surgery has emerged as a less invasive alternative with several advantages. Despite this, no meta-analysis has yet directly compared the clinical outcomes of these two management strategies.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA guidelines. The PubMed, Embase, LILACS and Web of Science databases were rigoursly searched. Post-operative repair success rate, risk of recurrence and the risk of presenting any operation-related compilation and the all-cause mortality rate were analyzed. Data were analyzed using a common-effects meta-analysis, and statistical heterogeneity was assessed. The study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024606877).
resultsSeven studies comprising 360 patients (140 endoscopic, 220 open) were included. Although the point estimate suggested a higher success rate with endoscopic repair, the difference was not statistically significant OR 1.32 (95% CI 0.55-3.16, I2 = 4.4%). The complication rate was significantly lower in the endoscopic group OR 0.26 (95% CI 0.10-0.67, I2 = 38%) and a leave-one-out analysis excluding the study by Gassner et al. found OR 0.10 (95% CI 0.03-0.32, I2 = 0%). Recurrence of CSF fistulas showed a trend favoring endoscopic repair (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.42-1.43, I2 = 0%). No mortality was reported.
conclusionsEndoscopic CSF fistula repair demonstrates a superior safety profile and is non-inferior in terms of efficacy compared to open surgery. Given the limited number of high-quality studies, further research is needed and larger, well-designed studies are recommended to refine clinical decision-making and optimize patient care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40663243What 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.