ArticleJournal of neurological surgery. Part B, Skull base2026
Comparing the Effects of Absorbable versus Nonabsorbable Nasal Packing on Postoperative Outcomes Following Endoscopic Ventral Skull Base Surgery.
Article in Journal of neurological surgery. Part B, Skull base, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Advances in endoscopic endonasal approaches in ventral skull base surgery have led to increasingly complex resections and reconstructions. This study investigates differences in postoperative outcomes, including postoperative cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak and infection, following anterior skull base surgery and reconstruction, as a function of the type of nasal packing (absorbable vs. nonabsorbable) used to bolster the skull base reconstruction. Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed at a single tertiary care institution. Patients who underwent ventral skull base surgery with placement of nasal packing between January 1, 2020, and December 1, 2023, were included. We included only patients of a single rhinologist (S.L.) involved. Outcome measures included postoperative CSF leaks and postoperative infection. Results: Of the 179 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 105 patients (58.7%) received absorbable nasal packing (Nasopore), and 72 patients (40.2%) received nonabsorbable nasal packing (Merocel). Fifteen postoperative leaks occurred overall, with six CSF leaks reported in patients with absorbable nasal packing (5.7%) and nine CSF leaks reported in patients with Merocel packing (12.5%). Fifteen cases of postoperative infection were recorded, with nine cases in patients with absorbable nasal packing (8.6%) and six cases in patients with nonabsorbable nasal packing (8.3%). Overall, no statistically significant difference was found for the rate of postoperative CSF leak ( Conclusion: While no significant differences were found in the rate of postoperative CSF leak or infection, additional patient factors should be taken into consideration when choosing between absorbable and nonabsorbable nasal packing for ventral skull base reconstruction. Level of Evidence: 4.
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.