1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Post-Operative Complications after Foramen Magnum Decompression with Duraplasty Using Different Graft Materials in Adults Patients with Chiari I Malformation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

      , , , ,
      Journal of Clinical Medicine
      MDPI AG

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Despite extensive investigations, the choice of graft material for reconstructive duraplasty after foramen magnum decompression for Chiari type I malformation (CMI) is still a topic of discussion. The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature examining the post-operative complications in adult patients with CMI after foramen magnum decompression and duraplasty (FMDD) using different graft materials. Our systematic review included 23 studies with a total of 1563 patients with CMI who underwent FMDD with different dural substitutes. The most common complications were pseudomeningocele (2.7%, 95% CI 1.5–3.9%, p < 0.01, I2 = 69%) and CSF leak (2%, 95% CI 1–2.9%, p < 0,01, I2 = 43%). The revision surgery rate was 3% (95% CI 1.8–4.2%, p < 0.01, I2 = 54%). A lower rate of pseudomeningocele was observed with autologous duraplasty when compared with synthetic duraplasty (0.7% [95% CI 0–1.3%] vs. 5.3% [95% CI 2.1–8.4%] p < 0.01). The rate of CSF leak and revision surgery was lower after autologous duraplasty than after non-autologous dural graft (1.8% [95% CI 0.5–3.1%] vs. 5.3% [95% CI 1.6–9%], p < 0.01 and 0.8% [95% CI 0.1–1.6%] vs. 4.9% [95% CI 2.6–7.2%] p < 0.01, respectively). Autologous duraplasty is associated with a lower rate of post-operative pseudomeningocele and reoperation. This information should be considered when planning duraplasty after foramen magnum decompression in patients with CMI.

          Related collections

          Most cited references37

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews

            The methods and results of systematic reviews should be reported in sufficient detail to allow users to assess the trustworthiness and applicability of the review findings. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was developed to facilitate transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews and has been updated (to PRISMA 2020) to reflect recent advances in systematic review methodology and terminology. Here, we present the explanation and elaboration paper for PRISMA 2020, where we explain why reporting of each item is recommended, present bullet points that detail the reporting recommendations, and present examples from published reviews. We hope that changes to the content and structure of PRISMA 2020 will facilitate uptake of the guideline and lead to more transparent, complete, and accurate reporting of systematic reviews.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Meta-analysis in clinical trials revisited.

              In this paper, we revisit a 1986 article we published in this Journal, Meta-Analysis in Clinical Trials, where we introduced a random-effects model to summarize the evidence about treatment efficacy from a number of related clinical trials. Because of its simplicity and ease of implementation, our approach has been widely used (with more than 12,000 citations to date) and the "DerSimonian and Laird method" is now often referred to as the 'standard approach' or a 'popular' method for meta-analysis in medical and clinical research. The method is especially useful for providing an overall effect estimate and for characterizing the heterogeneity of effects across a series of studies. Here, we review the background that led to the original 1986 article, briefly describe the random-effects approach for meta-analysis, explore its use in various settings and trends over time and recommend a refinement to the method using a robust variance estimator for testing overall effect. We conclude with a discussion of repurposing the method for Big Data meta-analysis and Genome Wide Association Studies for studying the importance of genetic variants in complex diseases.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                JCMOHK
                Journal of Clinical Medicine
                JCM
                MDPI AG
                2077-0383
                May 2023
                May 10 2023
                : 12
                : 10
                : 3382
                Article
                10.3390/jcm12103382
                10219266
                37240488
                a923bb4e-ab1e-4bfc-9371-bac55bd4ca75
                © 2023

                https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article