Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24448187›Full record

ArticleNeurosurgery2014

Multidisciplinary approach for improved outcomes in secondary cranial reconstruction: introducing the pericranial-onlay cranioplasty technique.

Chad R Gordon, Mark Fisher, Jason Liauw, Ioan Lina, Varun Puvanesarajah, Srinivas Susarla, Alexander Coon, Michael Lim, Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa, Jon Weingart and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neurosurgery, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Letter to the editor: response to article "management and prevention of cranioplasty infections".Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2019
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review of Cranioplasty after Decompressive Craniectomy.Korean journal of neurotrauma · 2017
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Chad R Gordon*Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and §Department of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; ‡Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Mark Fisher
Jason Liauw
Ioan Lina
Varun Puvanesarajah
Srinivas Susarla
Alexander Coon
Michael Lim
Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa
Jon Weingart
Geoffrey Colby
Alessandro Olivi
Judy Huang

Funding

Translational Research Central ServicesP30CA006973 · NCI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Rosalie Wollett · 1985 to 2026
$208.6M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA006973
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough materials for secondary cranial reconstruction have evolved with time, the overall approach in terms of bone flap/implant reconstruction after necessary delay has remained constant.

objectiveTo present our cases series of 50 consecutive secondary cranial reconstruction patients and to describe a multidisciplinary cranioplasty approach developed to reduce morbidity, to minimize infection, and to improve aesthetic appearance.

methodsStandard technique teaches us to place the bone flap and/or alloplastic implant directly over the dura or dural protectant after scalp flap re-elevation. However, this procedure is fraught with high complication rates, including infection. While raising the previously incised scalp flap overlying the full-thickness calvarial defect, the dissection is performed within the loose areolar tissue plane beneath the galea aponeurosis, thus leaving vascularized pericranium intact over the dura.

resultsA total of 50 consecutive patients were treated by the senior author encompassing 46 cranioplasties using the pericranial-onlay approach, along with 4 isolated temporal soft tissue reconstructions with liquid poly-methyl-methacrylate. Of the 46 cranioplasties (> 5 cm), only 1 autologous bone flap developed deep infection necessitating bone flap removal (1 of 46, 2.17%; 95% confidence interval, 0.003-11.3). None of the alloplastic custom implants placed have developed any infection requiring removal.

conclusionThis multidisciplinary approach illustrated in our case series, including our "pericranial-onlay" technique described here for the first time, has the potential to improve patient outcomes, to decrease perioperative morbidity, and to minimize costs associated with postoperative infections after secondary cranial reconstruction.

Indexed as

Surgical FlapsTreatment OutcomeAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBrain NeoplasmsChildCraniotomyFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle AgedPlastic Surgery ProceduresPostoperative Complications

Identifiers

PMID24448187
PMCPMC4703091

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.