SynthesisNeurosurgical review2026
Risk factors for dural tears following spinal surgery: A quantitative analysis of 33 cohort studies involving 831,292 participants.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dural tear (DT) is a common intraoperative complication of lumbar and other spinal surgeries. Although interest in its potential risk factors has increased in recent years, the overall incidence of DT and its definitive predictors remain incompletely understood. This study aimed to comprehensively identify risk factors associated with DT following spinal surgery through a systematic review and meta-analysis. A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was conducted from database inception to July 26, 2025, to identify studies reporting risk factors for DT after spinal surgery. Random-effects models were used to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) for each potential predictor. Based on sample size, Egger’s test, and between-study heterogeneity, the quality of evidence from observational studies was categorized as high (Class I), moderate (Class II or III), or low (Class IV). Subgroup analyses stratified by baseline study characteristics and leave-one-out sensitivity analyses were performed to further explore heterogeneity and assess the robustness of the findings. Of 18,255 screened records, 33 cohort studies comprising 831,292 patients were included in the quantitative synthesis. Among patient-related factors, advanced age (≥ 60 years) (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.00–1.10, P = 0.04), female sex (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.28–1.57, P < 0.01), lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) (OR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.39–2.27, P < 0.01), hypertension (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.12–1.59, P < 0.01), and diabetes mellitus (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.12–1.62, P < 0.01) were associated with increased DT risk. Among surgery-related factors, revision procedures (OR, 2.78; 95% CI, 2.24–3.45, P < 0.01) and laminectomy (OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.43–2.64, P < 0.01) were significant predictors. The meta-analysis indicated that smoking and microendoscopic discectomy (MED) were not independent risk factors for DT after spinal surgery. This meta-analysis identifies advanced age, female sex, hypertension, diabetes, and LSS as key patient-related risk factors for DT, while revision surgery and laminectomy are important surgical predictors. However, given the modest effect sizes observed for most variables, these findings should be interpreted with caution. Additional prospective studies are warranted to strengthen the evidence base. Despite these limitations, the results may assist clinicians in recognizing high-risk patients and improving perioperative management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41995886What 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.