ReviewNeurosurgery practice2026
Intraoperative Agents for Hemostasis and Dural Reconstruction in Neurosurgery.
Review in Neurosurgery practice, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intraoperative hemostasis and dural closure are critical components of neurosurgical procedures, directly affecting operative time, blood loss, neurological outcomes, and the risk of cerebrospinal fluid leak, infection, and reoperation. Over the past 2 decades, there has been rapid expansion in the availability of hemostatic adjuncts, dural substitutes, and liquid sealants. Despite widespread adoption, product selection is frequently guided by surgeon preference and institutional practice rather than a detailed understanding of material composition, mechanism of action, and product-specific limitations. This qualitative review provides a neurosurgery-focused, product-level comparison of commonly used intraoperative hemostatic agents, dural substitutes, and dural sealants, with emphasis on composition, mechanism of action, indications, advantages, limitations, safety considerations, and cost. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, United States Food and Drug Administration device summaries, manufacturer instructions for use, and key clinical trials and observational studies. Products were categorized into 3 groups: intraoperative hemostatic adjuncts, dural substitutes and graft materials, and liquid dural sealants and adhesives. The review encompasses gelatin-based products, oxidized regenerated cellulose, collagen-based agents, flowable gelatin-thrombin matrices, topical thrombin preparations, autologous and nonautologous dural grafts, and fibrin- and polyethylene glycol-based sealants. Selection of these materials should be guided by anatomic considerations, patient-specific factors, and best available evidence. This review serves as a practical reference to support informed intraoperative decision-making in neurosurgical practice.
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.