ArticleSurgical neurology international2022
Comparison of autograft and implant cranioplasty in pediatrics: A meta-analysis.
Article in Surgical neurology international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sonolucent Cranioplasties in Young Children: Technical Nuances and Challenges.Neurosurgery practice · 2026Article
- Management and outcomes of craniectomy and cranioplasty in pediatric intracranial infections: a multicenter cohort study.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2026Observational
- Composite grafts made of polycaprolactone fiber mats and oil-based calcium phosphate cement pastes for the reconstruction of cranial and maxillofacial defects.Clinical oral investigations · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cranioplasty in pediatrics is quite challenging and intricated. The ideal material for it is still debatable until now due to the limited study comparing autologous and implant grafts. This meta-analytic study was conducted to evaluate the risk of infection and revision in pediatric patients after autograft and implant cranioplasty. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. A thorough literature search was conducted on PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, and ScienceDirect database. Articles published from 2000 to 2021 were selected systematically using PRISMA based on the predetermined eligibility criteria. The relevant data were, then, analyzed and discussed. Results: A total of four publications investigating the outcome of autograft and implant cranioplasty were included and reviewed. Postoperative infection and revision rate after 126 cranioplasty procedures (both autograft or implant) from 119 patients below 21 years during time frame of study were analyzed. This meta-analysis study showed that the rate of infection and revision after cranioplasty were not different between the autograft and implant groups. Conclusion: Autograft and implant cranioplasty have no significant difference in postoperatively infection and revision rate. This study showed that cranioplasty using implant is a plausible option in pediatric patients with cranial defects, depending on the patients' condition due to similar outcome with autograft cranioplasty. Further studies with larger population and more specific details are necessary to determine the comparison of autograft and implant material in cranioplasty procedure.
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.