Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
The use of human amniotic membrane (HAM) has recently gained attention as a promising alternative option for duraplasty due to its superior tensile strength, elasticity, and anti-inflammatory and anti-fibrotic properties, offering greater durability and reliability compared to autologous grafts like the muscle fascia and pericranium. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the complications associated with duraplasty using HAM. We comprehensively searched the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for studies on duraplasty with HAM. The eligibility criteria included studies on patients who underwent dural repair with duraplasty using HAM, with or without a control group. Duraplasty involves opening the dura mater, the protective covering of the brain and spinal cord, and using a graft to enlarge the space around the cerebellum. Dual repair, on the other hand, involves repairing the dura mater without opening it and then using a patch to enlarge the space around the cerebellum. Randomized controlled trials, observational studies, case series, and case reports were included, and quality assessment was conducted. Our search yielded 191 articles. Ten studies were included, with a total of 560 participants. The overall incidence of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage was three (0.63%) out of 478 in the HAM group and three (4.76%) out of 63 in the other methods group (pericranium, temporalis fascia, and biological dural substitutes). Regarding the incidence of postoperative complications, the overall incidence was eight (1.92%) out of 417 in the HAM group and two (8%) out of 25 in the other methods group. The overall incidence of meningitis was one (0.67%) out of 150 in the HAM group and three (10%) out of 30 in the other methods group. In conclusion, duraplasty using HAM may be a safe and effective alternative to traditional methods, with a low incidence of CSF leakage and postoperative complications.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10808866 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.51117 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!