SynthesisNeurosurgery2026
Intraoperative Ultrasound in Chiari 1 Decompression: Clarity or Confusion? A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Neurosurgery, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesPatients with symptomatic Chiari malformation type 1 (CM-1) usually undergo either bone-only posterior fossa decompression (PFD) or a more invasive procedure involving dural expansion with or without tonsillar resection (PFD+). PFD+ may be more effective but it carries a higher risk of complications. Intraoperative ultrasound (iUS) may help determine whether PFD alone is sufficient, although specific criteria and its role in surgical decision making are not yet defined.
methodsA systematic review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, using search terms related to iUS, intraoperative sonography, and CM-1. Extracted data included demographics, surgical methods, iUS criteria, and outcomes. Conversion rates and the positive predictive values (PPVs) were calculated to quantify iUS effectiveness. Conversion rate was defined as the proportion of cases requiring secondary PFD+ after initial PFD. PPV was based on the number of successful PFDs relative to all initial PFDs. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.
resultsFrom 202 initial articles, 1 prospective and 8 retrospective studies were included, covering 844 pediatric and adult patients. According to the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, 1 study had a low, 3 moderate, and 5 high risk of bias. To assess decompression sufficiency, 8 studies used qualitative iUS criteria, whereas 1 used quantitative thresholds. Follow-up time ranged from 1 to 48 months, with varied outcome measures. Conversion rates ranged from 0% to 16% and PPV from 0.857 to 1.000, depending on the study. Conversion surgery rates were comparable with reoperation rates reported from studies without iUS.
conclusionThe available evidence does not yet support iUS as a robust testing method to inform intraoperative decision making regarding the extent of decompression, due to the heterogeneity of its application, and the absence of standardized assessment criteria. We propose a reporting framework incorporating all currently reported criteria to induce standardization and guide further research.
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.