ReviewCureus2025
Selecting Substitutes for Cranial Dural Repair and Preventing Intracranial Iatrogenic Amyloid Transmission.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A comparative analysis of early postoperative outcomes of autologous pericranium versus high-density polypropylene in cranial duraplasty in a tertiary care center in Central India.Chinese neurosurgical journal · 2026Article
- Two-layer inlay-onlay dural reconstruction technique for atrophic dura mater defects in the retrosigmoid approach.Neurosurgical review · 2026Article
- Genetic factors complicating recovery in patients with brain injury: Possible link between injury severity and posttraumatic neurodegeneration related to intracerebral amyloid deposition - A narrative review.Surgical neurology international · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dural repair following an osteoplastic craniotomy presents significant challenges, necessitating an optimal dural substitute to avoid complications and ensure successful patient outcomes when primary dural closure is not possible. Ideal substitutes provide a scaffold for fibroblast migration and implantation, which are essential for achieving postoperative dural sealing and watertightness. However, such a substitute seldom exists, underscoring the importance of choosing appropriate materials for dural repair to reduce the risks of postoperative complications, including iatrogenic prion contamination that may promote intracranial amyloid transmission. Available dural substitutes are categorized into autologous, allogeneic, and xenogeneic transplants, as well as organic, synthetic, and composite polymer grafts. While each category offers specific benefits, many disadvantages persist, including the risks of prion-like amyloid protein deposition, particularly spreading iatrogenic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. These risks have historically been associated with the use of cadaveric dura grafts and prion-contaminated surgical instruments, necessitating safer replacement materials and enhanced sterilization protocols. This narrative review addresses the critical challenges of dural repair following cranial surgery, proposing innovative directions that include the use of composite materials and emerging technologies, such as 3D printing. Through a narrative review, the evaluation of traditional and advanced dural substitutes is provided, summarizing the advantages and limitations of currently available dural substitutes. In conclusion, the ideal dural substitute should closely replicate the natural structure of the dura, support tissue regeneration, and prevent postoperative complications such as cerebrospinal fluid leakage and intracranial iatrogenic amyloid transmission, thereby ensuring optimal patient outcomes and recovery.
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.