MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367317186 · doi:10.25259/sni_125_2023

Rates of cerebrospinal fluid leak and pseudomeningocele formation after posterior fossa craniotomy versus craniectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2023· review· en· W4367317186 on OpenAlexaff
Mohamed Alhantoobi, Mohamad Kesserwan, Hassan A. Khayat, Mohammad Lawasi, Sunjay Sharma

Bibliographic record

VenueSurgical Neurology International · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Surgical Oncology
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University Medical CentreHamilton General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPseudomeningoceleMedicineCraniotomyLeakCerebrospinal fluid leakConfidence intervalCerebrospinal fluidMeta-analysisSurgeryAnesthesiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Postoperative cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak is a major concern after posterior fossa surgery with significant clinical implications. It has been postulated that replacing the bone flap, performing a craniotomy, would reinforce the surgical closure and decrease rates of CSF leak. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the rate of CSF leak after posterior fossa craniotomies versus craniectomies. Methods: Three databases were searched for English studies comparing the primary outcome, rate of CSF leak, after adult posterior fossa craniotomies versus craniectomies. Secondary outcomes included the rate of postoperative pseudomeningocele formation, CSF leak and pseudomeningocele formation, CSF diversion, revision surgery, and infection. Pooled estimates and relative risks for dichotomous outcomes were calculated using Review Manager 5.4, with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: A total of 1250 patients (635 craniotomies and 615 craniectomies), from nine studies, were included in the final analysis. Even though rates of CSF leak favored craniotomies, the difference did not reach statistical significance in our pooled analysis (Risk Ratio: 0.71, 95% Confidence Interval: 0.45-1.14, p-value = 0.15, Heterogeneity I-squared = 0%). On the other hand, comparing the rates of pseudomeningocele formation and CSF leak, as a combined outcome, or pseudomeningocele formation only showed a significant difference favoring craniotomies. The quality of evidence in this meta-analysis was graded as having a high risk of bias based on the risk of bias in non-randomized studies - of exposure criteria. Conclusion: Based on evidence with high risk of bias, rates of postoperative CSF leak and pseudomeningocele formation favored posterior fossa craniotomies over craniectomies. Further research with more robust methodology is required to validate these findings.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.035
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.109
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSurgical Neurology InternationalSame topicHead and Neck Surgical OncologyFrench-language works237,207