Dural reconstruction in the literature: A CiteSpace visualized bibliometric analysis

TL;DR

This study uses bibliometric analysis to track trends in dural reconstruction research, highlighting shifts in focus from procedures to outcomes and materials.

Contribution

The study provides a visualized bibliometric analysis of duraplasty literature, revealing trends in material selection and surgical outcomes over time.

Findings

Keywords like 'dural substitute' and 'biocompatible materials' show consistent relevance in dural reconstruction research.

The literature shift from procedural to outcome-based considerations is evident, with increased focus on patient care outcomes.

'Collagen' is the most frequently mentioned non-autologous material in dural reconstruction studies.

Abstract

Duraplasty (DP) research has shown that surgical approach to dura mater reconstruction is not standardized. The aim of this study is to explore the development of research in duraplasty from a bibliometric perspective, with a focus on literature that discusses material choice. This can elucidate trends in DP literature over time to examine and promote future research directions. Original studies and review articles on duraplasty material related research were obtained from the Scopus database from 2003 to 2024. VOSviewer software was applied to conduct both co-authorship and co-occurrence analyses. CiteSpace was used to examine occurrences of top keywords, visualize collaboration networks, and identify references and keywords with the strongest citation bursts. Top co-cited title word clusters revealed “dural substitute” and “surgical outcome” as central, recurrent keywords. “Dural substitute” emerged as a highly interconnected keyword, reflecting its importance in the literature. Temporal analysis showed that “prognostic factors” emerged consistently around 2008 and “surgical outcome” gained prominence after 2010, with keywords such as “adverse event” and “clinical outcome” spiking in later citation bursts. Material-related keywords including “biocompatible materials” (2006–2011) and “dural substitute” (2011–2017) remained consistent, with “collagen” as the most frequently mentioned non-autologous material. This bibliometric analysis highlights a literature shift from procedural considerations to surgical outcomes and material selection. Similarly, the growth of outcome-based keywords reveals increased scholarly focus on outcomes relevant to patient care. These findings emphasize the need for a standardized approach to material selection in DP. Future studies should continue to evaluate long-term outcomes and patient satisfaction to optimize dural reconstruction techniques.

Figures