Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36227628›Full record

ArticleJMIR research protocols2022

A Medical-Grade Polycaprolactone and Tricalcium Phosphate Scaffold System With Corticoperiosteal Tissue Transfer for the Reconstruction of Acquired Calvarial Defects in Adults: Protocol for a Single-Arm Feasibility Trial.

Isabel Gonzalez Matheus, Dietmar W Hutmacher, Sarah Olson, Michael Redmond, Allison Sutherland, Michael Wagels

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR research protocols, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06792864 (Effectiveness of 3D Printed Polycaprolactone and Tricalcium Phosphate Bone Scaffold for Bone Regeneration in Cranioplasty), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
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.

NCT06792864 phase3enrolling by invitationnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Effectiveness of 3D Printed Polycaprolactone and Tricalcium Phosphate Bone Scaffold for Bone Regeneration in Cranioplasty: Randomized Clinical Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversidad Austral de ChileRan2024 to 2025Enrolled8ConditionsCranioplasty, Craniotomy, Craniotomy Clipping, Craniotomy SurgeryArmsOsteoprintCR, SMAR SET GMV Endurance Gentamicin
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Isabel Gonzalez MatheusDepartment of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Queenland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7848-8462
Dietmar W HutmacherRegenerative Medicine Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5678-2134
Sarah OlsonDepartment of Neurosurgery, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8731-8510
Michael RedmondHerston Biofabrication Institute, Herston, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3494-9129
Allison SutherlandThe Australian Centre for Complex Integrated Surgical Solutions, Translational Research Institute, Woolloongabba, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7775-8931
Michael WagelsDepartment of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Queenland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0929-5215
Translational Research Institute · AUPrincess Alexandra Hospital · AUQueensland University of Technology · AURoyal Brisbane and Women's Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLarge skull defects present a reconstructive challenge. Conventional cranioplasty options include autologous bone grafts, vascularized bone, metals, synthetic ceramics, and polymers. Autologous options are affected by resorption and residual contour deformities. Synthetic materials may be customized via digital planning and 3D printing, but they all carry a risk of implant exposure, failure, and infection, which increases when the defect is large. These complications can be a threat to life. Without reconstruction, patients with cranial defects may experience headaches and stigmatization. The protection of the brain necessitates lifelong helmet use, which is also stigmatizing.

objectiveOur clinical trial will formally study a hybridized technique's capacity to reconstruct large calvarial defects.

methodsA hybridized technique that draws on the benefits of autologous and synthetic materials has been developed by the research team. This involves wrapping a biodegradable, ultrastructured, 3D-printed scaffold made of medical-grade polycaprolactone and tricalcium phosphate in a vascularized, autotransplanted periosteum to exploit the capacity of vascularized periostea to regenerate bone. In vitro, the scaffold system supports cell attachment, migration, and proliferation with slow but sustained degradation to permit host tissue regeneration and the replacement of the scaffold. The in vivo compatibility of this scaffold system is robust-the base material has been used clinically as a resorbable suture material for decades. The importance of scaffold vascularization, which is inextricably linked to bone regeneration, is underappreciated. A variety of methods have been described to address this, including scaffold prelamination and axial vascularization via arteriovenous loops and autotransplanted flaps. However, none of these directly promote bone regeneration.

resultsWe expect to have results before the end of 2023. As of December 2020, we have enrolled 3 participants for the study.

conclusionsThe regenerative matching axial vascularization technique may be an alternative method of reconstruction for large calvarial defects. It involves performing a vascularized free tissue transfer and using a bioresorbable, 3D-printed scaffold to promote and support bone regeneration (termed the regenerative matching axial vascularization technique). This technique may be used to reconstruct skull bone defects that were previously thought to be unreconstructable, reduce the risk of implant-related complications, and achieve consistent outcomes in cranioplasty. This must now be tested in prospective clinical trials.

trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12620001171909; https://tinyurl.com/4rakccb3. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/36111.

Indexed as

3D printingbonecraniofacialcranioplastyfree flapreconstructionskullsurgery

Identifiers

PMID36227628
PMCPMC9614622
OpenAlexW4304944114

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.