ArticleJournal of neurological surgery. Part A, Central European neurosurgery2023
Safety and Performance of a New Burr Hole Covering Device: Results of the Multicenter COVER Registry.
Article in Journal of neurological surgery. Part A, Central European neurosurgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Translational Considerations for Injectable Biomaterials and Bioscaffolds to Repair and Regenerate Brain Tissue.Advanced healthcare materials · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBurr hole covering in brain surgical procedures can avoid complications and unaesthetic results. The aim of this registry was to assess the safety and performance of a new polymeric burr hole covering device (Cranial COVER, NEOS Surgery).
methodsA multicenter, prospective, clinical registry design was used for the study. All the patients who fulfilled the inclusion criteria were included in the study and followed up for 6 months. Baseline clinical parameters, surgical variables (technical success of the implantation, surgeon satisfaction), postoperative variables (aesthetic and functional results, neuroimaging artifacts), and adverse events were evaluated.
resultsForty-three Cranial COVER devices were implanted in 30 patients. Most of them were implanted in frontal locations (53.5%). After implantation, 97.7% of the devices completely covered the burr hole, and 100% perfectly adapted to the skull surface. All surgeons ranked their satisfaction with the implantation procedure as very high or high. No artifacts were detected in any of the neuroimaging studies performed and no adverse events related with the device or its implantation were reported during the follow-up. There were significantly more scalp depressions associated with uncovered than with Cranial COVER-covered burr holes (
conclusionCranial COVER is a safe and reliable burr hole covering system that offers excellent cosmetic results and high satisfaction rates for both surgeons and patients. Cranial COVER is highly adaptable to the skull surface, and it was predominantly used in frontal locations due to their cosmetic importance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.