ArticleBMC surgery2022
Autologous bone fragments for skull reconstruction after microvascular decompression.
Article in BMC surgery, 2022. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of a modified cranial closure technique with bone cement in reducing postoperative complications following microvascular decompression surgery: a retrospective cohort study.European journal of medical research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVarious methods are used to reconstruct the skull after microvascular decompression, giving their own advantages and disadvantages. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of using autologous bone fragments for skull reconstruction after microvascular decompression.
methodsThe clinical and follow-up data of 145 patients who underwent microvascular decompression and skull reconstruction using autologous bone fragments in our hospital from September 2020 to September 2021 were retrospectively analyzed.
resultsThree patients (2.06%) had delayed wound healing after surgery and were discharged after wound cleaning. No patient developed postoperative cerebrospinal fluid leakage, incisional dehiscence, or intracranial infection. Eighty-five (58.62%) patients underwent follow-up cranial computed tomography at 1 year postoperatively, showed excellent skull reconstruction. And, the longer the follow-up period, the more satisfactory the cranial repair. Two patients underwent re-operation for recurrence of hemifacial spasm, and intraoperative observation revealed that the initial skull defect was filled with new skull bone.
conclusionThe use of autologous bone fragments for skull reconstruction after microvascular decompression is safe and feasible, with few postoperative wound complications and excellent long-term repair results.
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.