SynthesisNeurosurgical review2026
Applications of acellular dermal matrix in spine surgery: A systematic review.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is a tissue-engineered biological scaffold widely adopted in plastic reconstructive surgery, yet its application in spine surgery remains largely underexplored. No prior systematic review has synthesized the available evidence. A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Scopus was performed from inception through 31 July 2026, following PRISMA 2020 guidelines (PROSPERO: CRD420261326660). Studies were stratified a priori into three evidence tiers: direct spine surgery evidence, craniovertebral/neuraxis evidence, and indirect cranial evidence. Risk of bias was assessed with ROBINS-I and JBI checklists; certainty was rated using GRADE. Ten studies comprising 385 enrolled patients met inclusion criteria: 172 patients in seven studies providing direct spine surgery evidence, 13 patients in two craniovertebral/neuraxis studies, and 200 patients in one predominantly cranial duraplasty series. Five application categories were identified. The single comparative study-a propensity score-matched cohort of 108 patients undergoing ACDF-reported lower Swallowing Impairment Scores at the pre-specified three-month endpoint (0.26 ± 0.16 vs. 0.68 ± 0.27, p = 0.01, significant after Bonferroni correction), although the observed difference (Δ = 0.42) fell below the suggested minimal clinically important difference, and adhesion scores did not differ between groups. All remaining studies were uncontrolled. GRADE certainty was very low across all outcomes. Efficacy of ADM in spine surgery cannot be determined from the current evidence base. Reported adverse events were infrequent, but ascertainment was neither standardized nor prospective, and these data are insufficient to establish safety. Findings are product- and indication-specific and should not be generalized across ADM formulations or clinical applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42842030What 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.