SynthesisFrontiers in neurology
Penetrating injuries of the posterior dural venous sinuses: a systematic review of injury mechanisms and repair techniques.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Penetrating injuries to the posterior dural venous sinuses (DVSs), which include the transverse sinus, sigmoid sinus, and torcular Herophili, are rare, life-threatening events with no standardized management protocols. This study aims to elucidate the injury mechanisms, management strategies, and outcomes associated with these injuries. A systematic review of all reported cases of penetrating posterior DVS injury was conducted on February 08, 2026. The systematic review yielded 10 studies comprising 43 patients. Demographic data were reported for eight of these 43 patients (18.6%). Seven (87.5%) of these patients were male, and one (12.5%) was female. Mean (SD) patient age was 25.8 (16.6) years (range, 5-52 years). The most common mechanism of injury was penetrating injury (38 of 43, 88.4%). The transverse sinus was the most frequently injured sinus (83.7%); reported management techniques for transverse sinus injuries included suture repair, grafting, and packing. Sigmoid sinus injuries were identified in five of 43 patients (11.6%); most of these injuries were managed with tamponade, but one patient (20%) died. Torcular Herophili injuries were rare (2 of 43 patients, 4.7%) and often hemodynamically unstable. Direct repair (e.g., suture, patch, or graft) was associated with improved survival. These reports showed that management of penetrating posterior DVS injuries may be tailored to the sinus involved, and evidence supports reconstructive strategies to preserve venous outflow whenever possible. Although transverse sinus ligation may be tolerated in cases of contralateral dominance, sigmoid sinus injuries are associated with poorer outcomes and were typically managed with tamponade. In contrast, patients with torcular Herophili injuries were shown to have favorable outcomes when repaired to preserve flow. This integrated review provides a foundational framework for managing complex venous sinus injuries in high-acuity settings. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD420251133849, identifier: CRD420251133849.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.