ArticleFrontiers in surgery2025
Comparative evaluation of two dural closure techniques for U-shaped incisions: sealing efficacy vs. site-specific infection risk.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to compare the outcomes of direct suturing (Method 1) and pericranium-assisted suturing (Method 2) for U-shaped dural incisions, with a specific focus on site-specific differences in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak and postoperative infection. Methods: In this retrospective cohort, 172 patients undergoing repair of U-shaped dural incisions were analyzed. Based on intraoperative feasibility, patients underwent either Method 1 ( Results: The incidence of CSF leak was low and comparable between the two methods, regardless of surgical site (Method 1: 7.14% supratentorial vs. 7.69% infratentorial, Conclusion: Both direct and pericranium-assisted suturing are effective in preventing CSF leak for U-shaped dural incisions. However, the pericranium-assisted technique carries a significantly increased risk of incision-related infections in the infratentorial region. Clinical decision-making must therefore balance the reliable sealing capability of pericranium-assisted repair against its site-specific infection profile, particularly in complex posterior fossa surgeries.
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.