Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
Objective: Calcium phosphate cement (CPC) use has been previously described as a strategy to reduce the rates of pseudomeningocele and CSF leakage following skull base surgery. The authors aimed to present their institutional experience with CPC in retrosigmoid craniotomy and perform a systematic review of the literature to determine the effectiveness of CPC in reducing postoperative complications, including pseudomeningocele and craniotomy-site CSF leakage.
Methods: A retrospective single-institution cohort study of patients who underwent retrosigmoid craniotomy with and without CPC cranioplasty from January 2017 to April 2024 was performed. A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of CPC use in retrosigmoid craniotomy was also performed.
Results: Of 336 patients who underwent retrosigmoid craniotomy, 193 (57%) were female and the median age at surgery was 55 years (range 18-81 years). The median follow-up duration was 23 months (range 3-80 months). CPC was used to seal the edge of the craniotomy in 66 patients (20%). Among all patients, 50 (15%) experienced a postoperative complication, and 28 (8%) were wound-specific complications. Patients in the non-CPC group experienced significantly more postoperative wound-specific complications than those in the CPC group (10% vs 0%, p = 0.002). Specifically, pseudomeningocele occurred in 0 patients (0%) in the CPC group compared with 24 patients (9%) in the non-CPC group (p = 0.006), which progressed to CSF leaks at the craniotomy site in 6 patients (p = 0.60). Additionally, no patients (0%) in the CPC group experienced wound infection, dehiscence, or breakdown compared with 10 patients (4%) in the non-CPC group (p = 0.22). Five patients (8%) in the CPC group reported prolonged mild incisional pain at the craniotomy site, and there were no instances of major complications related to the CPC. In the meta-analysis, 10 studies met the inclusion criteria, yielding a total of 2166 patients (including the current study), 1101 of whom received CPC. In the pooled analysis, CPC was significantly associated with lower risk of CSF leakage at the craniotomy site (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.13-0.42; p < 0.01) and lower risk of infection (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.08-0.38; p < 0.01).
Conclusions: CPC use in retrosigmoid craniotomies could be a safe and effective strategy to reduce the incidence of pseudomeningocele and craniotomy-site CSF leakage, leading to lower rates of wound-related complications and infection.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.3171/2025.1.JNS241076 | DOI Listing |