SynthesisNeurosurgical review2026
Porous polyethylene implant for skull base reconstruction in transsphenoidal surgery: a systematic literature review and institutional case series.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reconstruction of skull base (SB) defects following endoscopic endonasal approaches (EEA) is critical to minimize postoperative complications. Porous high-density polyethylene (Medpor®) implants have been employed for this purpose; however, their long-term complication rates and osteointegration outcomes remain unclear. A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines across three databases, including studies involving SB reconstruction with porous polyethylene implants that reported complications and osteointegration outcomes. Additionally, a retrospective analysis was performed on 94 patients undergoing SB reconstruction in transsphenoidal surgery with Medpor (2008–2024). Osteointegration was assessed via imaging and clinical outcomes with a minimum follow-up of 1 year, as well as intraoperative findings in reoperated cases. Eleven studies (691 patients) were included, with reported postoperative complications including CSF leaks (2.9%), infections (2.3%), and rare implant extrusion or osteointegration failures (0.4%). In the institutional cohort, 25 of 94 patients (26.6%) required reoperation, with 17 undergoing reoperation at least 6 months post-implantation. All these patients were reoperated for pathology recurrence, except for one who was reoperated for spontaneous Medpor extrusion. Among these, 94% (16/17) had no evidence of osteointegration. Chronic nasal symptoms were reported in 13.4% of non-reoperated patients, with no cases requiring implant removal. One of the 17 reoperated patient had an additional surgery due to spontaneous Medpor Extrusion. The placement of the nasoseptal flap to cover Medpor did not appear to have a facilitating effect on its osseointegration; however, its role will need to be further studied. Medpor implants demonstrate acceptable long-term safety for EEA skull base reconstruction, with low rates of major complications. However, osteointegration appears infrequent (< 8%) even over extended follow-up.
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.