Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30610476›Full record

SynthesisChild's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery2019

Cranioplasty after craniectomy in pediatric patients-a systematic review.

Vita M Klieverik, Kai J Miller, Ash Singhal, Kuo Sen Han, Peter A Woerdeman

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Cranial Repair in Children: Techniques, Materials, and Peculiar Issues.Advances and technical standards in neurosurgery · 2024
    Review
  6. Cranial Repair in Children: Techniques, Materials, and Peculiar Issues.Advances and technical standards in neurosurgery · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Favourable long-term recovery after decompressive craniectomy: the Northern Finland experience with a predominantly adolescent patient cohort.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. [The latest study on biomimetic mineralized collagen-based bone materials for pediatric skull regeneration and repair].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2021
    Review
  15. Time to define what is pediatric in cranial reconstruction.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2021
    Article
  16. Melanotic neuroectodermal tumor of infancy to the skull: case-based review.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2020
    Review
  17. Hydroxyapatite ceramic implants for cranioplasty in children: a retrospective evaluation of clinical outcome and osteointegration.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2020
    Article
  18. Review
  19. From decompressive craniectomy to cranioplasty and beyond-a pediatric neurosurgery perspective.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2019
    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

5 authors.

Vita M KlieverikDepartment of Neurosurgery, Brain Center Rudolf Magnus, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, room G03.124, 3484, CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Kai J MillerDepartment of Neurosurgery, Brain Center Rudolf Magnus, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, room G03.124, 3484, CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Ash SinghalDivision of Pediatric Neurosurgery, British Columbia Children's Hospital, B, Vancouver, C, Canada.
Kuo Sen HanDepartment of Neurosurgery, Brain Center Rudolf Magnus, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, room G03.124, 3484, CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Peter A WoerdemanDepartment of Neurosurgery, Brain Center Rudolf Magnus, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, room G03.124, 3484, CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands. p.a.woerdeman@umcutrecht.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionComplications following cranioplasty with either autografts or cranial implants are commonly reported in pediatric patients. However, data regarding cranioplasty strategies, complications and long-term outcomes are not well described. This study systematically reviews the literature for an overview of current cranioplasty practice in children.

methodsA systematic review of articles published from inception to July 2018 was performed. Studies were included if they reported the specific use of cranioplasty materials following craniectomy in patients younger than 18 years of age, and had a minimum follow-up of at least 1 year.

resultsTwenty-four manuscripts, describing a total of 864 cranioplasty procedures, met the inclusion criteria. The age of patients in this aggregate ranged from 1 month to 20 years and the weighted average was 8.0 years. The follow-up ranged from 0.4 months to 18 years and had a weighted average of 40.4 months. Autologous bone grafts were used in 484 cases (56.0%). Resorption, infection and/or hydrocephalus were the most frequently mentioned complications. In this aggregate group, 61 patients needed a revision cranioplasty. However, in 6/13 (46%) papers studying autologous cranioplasties, no data was provided on resorption, infection and revision cranioplasty rates. Cranial implants were used in 380 cases (44.0%), with custom-made porous hydroxyapatite being the most commonly used material (100/380, 26.3%). Infection and migration/fracturing/loosening were the most frequently documented complications. Eleven revision cranioplasties were reported. Again, no data was reported on infection and revision cranioplasty rates, in 7/16 (44%) and 9/16 (56%) of papers, respectively.

conclusionOur systematic review illuminates that whether autografts or cranial implants are used, postcranioplasty complications are quite common. Beyond this, the existing literature does not contain well documented and comparable outcome parameters, suggesting that prospective, long-term multicenter cohort studies are needed to be able to optimize cranioplasty strategies in children who will undergo cranioplasty following craniectomy.

Indexed as

Plastic Surgery ProceduresAdolescentBone TransplantationChildChild, PreschoolCraniotomyFemaleHumansMalePostoperative ComplicationsSkullSurgical FlapsChildrenCraniectomyCranioplastyPediatric neurosurgery

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.