OBJECTIVESurgery is the definitive treatment of Chiari malformation Type I (CM-I). It involves posterior fossa decompression, which can be performed along with C-1 laminectomy, reconstructive duraplasty, or tonsil shrinkage. The aim of this study was to provide an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the latest available evidence regarding posterior fossa decompression only (PFDO) versus posterior fossa decompression with duraplasty (PFDD) in the treatment of CM-I in children.METHODSA literature search was performed in compliance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines for article identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion. Relevant articles were identified from 6 electronic databases from their inception to April 2016. These articles were screened against established criteria for inclusion into this study.RESULTSFrom 12 relevant studies identified, 1492 pediatric patients treated via PFDD were compared with 1963 pediatric patients treated by PFDO for CM-I. PFDD was associated with greater overall clinical improvement (p = 0.009), along with longer length of stay (p < 0.0001) and more postoperative complications (p = 0.0001) compared with PFDO. No difference was observed between PFDD and PFDO in terms of revision surgery incidence (p = 0.13), estimated blood loss (p = 0.14), syrinx improvement (p = 0.09), or scoliosis improvement (p = 0.95).CONCLUSIONSIt appears that the addition of duraplasty to posterior decompression in the definitive treatment of CM-I in children may alter surgical and performance outcomes. In particular, parameters of overall clinical improvement, length of stay, and postoperative complication may differ between children undergoing PFDD and those undergoing PFDO. Current evidence in the literature is of low to very low quality that, as of yet, has not been able to completely control for inherent selection bias both in study design and surgeon preference. Future, large prospective registries and randomized controlled trials are warranted to validate the findings of this study.

Background. Adult kidney transplantation is most commonly into an extraperitoneal potential space, and surgically placed drains are used routinely in many centers. There is limited evidence of clinical benefit for prophylactic drainage in other major abdominal and vascular surgery. Transplantation is, however, a unique setting combining organ dysfunction and immunosuppression, and the risks and benefits of prophylactic drain placement are not known. This study attempts to examine existing literature to determine whether prophylactic intraoperative drains have an impact on the likelihood of perigraft fluid collections and other wound-related complications following kidney transplantation. Methods. A literature search of MEDLINE and EMBASE was conducted to identify published comparative studies, including recipients receiving prophylactic drains to recipients in whom drains were omitted. The main outcomes were the incidence of peritransplant fluid collections and wound-related complications. Meta-analysis was performed on these data. Results. Four retrospective cohort studies were deemed eligible for quantitative analysis and 1 additional conference abstract was included in qualitative discussion. A total of 1640 patients, 1023 with drains and 617 without, were included in the meta-analysis. There was a lower rate of peritransplant collections associated with the drain group (RR 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-0.90). There was no significant difference in the incidence of wound-related complications between the groups (RR 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.34-2.11). Conclusions. These data associate a higher rate of peritransplant fluid collections with omission of prophylactic drainage, without a difference in the incidence of wound-related complications. Further research is required to definitively determine the impact of drains in this patient group.