MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415474157 · doi:10.1227/neu.0000000000003818

Intraoperative Ultrasound in Chiari 1 Decompression: Clarity or Confusion? A Systematic Review

2025· article· en· W4415474157 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Thomas Petutschnigg, Andreas Raabe, Philippe Schucht, Katharina Lutz

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurosurgery · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Dysraphism and Malformations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCLARITYStandardizationMEDLINEChiari I malformationUltrasoundEvidence-based medicineClinical decision makingSystematic review

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Patients with symptomatic Chiari malformation type 1 (CM-1) usually undergo either bone-only posterior fossa decompression (PFD) or a more invasive procedure involving dural expansion with or without tonsillar resection (PFD+). PFD+ may be more effective but it carries a higher risk of complications. Intraoperative ultrasound (iUS) may help determine whether PFD alone is sufficient, although specific criteria and its role in surgical decision making are not yet defined. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, using search terms related to iUS, intraoperative sonography, and CM-1. Extracted data included demographics, surgical methods, iUS criteria, and outcomes. Conversion rates and the positive predictive values (PPVs) were calculated to quantify iUS effectiveness. Conversion rate was defined as the proportion of cases requiring secondary PFD+ after initial PFD. PPV was based on the number of successful PFDs relative to all initial PFDs. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. RESULTS: From 202 initial articles, 1 prospective and 8 retrospective studies were included, covering 844 pediatric and adult patients. According to the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, 1 study had a low, 3 moderate, and 5 high risk of bias. To assess decompression sufficiency, 8 studies used qualitative iUS criteria, whereas 1 used quantitative thresholds. Follow-up time ranged from 1 to 48 months, with varied outcome measures. Conversion rates ranged from 0% to 16% and PPV from 0.857 to 1.000, depending on the study. Conversion surgery rates were comparable with reoperation rates reported from studies without iUS. CONCLUSION: The available evidence does not yet support iUS as a robust testing method to inform intraoperative decision making regarding the extent of decompression, due to the heterogeneity of its application, and the absence of standardized assessment criteria. We propose a reporting framework incorporating all currently reported criteria to induce standardization and guide further research.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.270
Threshold uncertainty score0.402

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurosurgerySame topicSpinal Dysraphism and MalformationsFrench-language works237,207