Comparative evaluation of two dural closure techniques for U-shaped incisions: sealing efficacy vs. site-specific infection risk
Clicks: 1
ID: 310110
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
0.0
/100
1 views
0 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Ranked #388 of 490 articles by views in Frontiers in surgery
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 490 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare the outcomes of direct suturing (Method 1) and pericranium-assisted suturing (Method 2) for U-shaped dural incisions, with a specific focus on site-specific differences in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak and postoperative infection.MethodsIn this retrospective cohort, 172 patients undergoing repair of U-shaped dural incisions were analyzed. Based on intraoperative feasibility, patients underwent either Method 1 (n = 94) or Method 2 (n = 78). Primary and secondary outcomes were CSF leak and postoperative infection rates, respectively. Subgroup analyses were stratified by surgical site (supratentorial vs. infratentorial).ResultsThe incidence of CSF leak was low and comparable between the two methods, regardless of surgical site (Method 1: 7.14% supratentorial vs. 7.69% infratentorial, P = 1.00; Method 2: 4.17% vs. 3.33%, P = 1.00). Re-repair rates were similarly low across all groups. However, Method 2 was associated with a significantly higher overall infection rate in the infratentorial compartment compared to supratentorial surgeries (23.33% vs. 6.25%, P = 0.039). Sub-analysis revealed this was primarily driven by a higher incidence of incision infection/delayed healing in the infratentorial group (16.67% vs. 2.08%, P = 0.028), whereas meningitis rates were comparable. Multivariable analysis confirmed the surgical site itself was not an independent risk factor for infection.ConclusionBoth direct and pericranium-assisted suturing are effective in preventing CSF leak for U-shaped dural incisions. However, the pericranium-assisted technique carries a significantly increased risk of incision-related infections in the infratentorial region. Clinical decision-making must therefore balance the reliable sealing capability of pericranium-assisted repair against its site-specific infection profile, particularly in complex posterior fossa surgeries.
| Reference Key |
imported_1768922131_696f9c1368914
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Wang, Qi-Hong |
| Journal | Frontiers in surgery |
| Year | 2026 |
| DOI |
10.3389/fsurg.2025.1728951
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.