Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37074490›Full record

ArticleNeurosurgical review2023

Clinical and patient-reported outcome after patient-specific 3D printer-assisted cranioplasty.

Florian Ebel, Stephan Schön, Neha Sharma, Raphael Guzman, Luigi Mariani, Florian M Thieringer, Jehuda Soleman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neurosurgical review, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

7 authors.

Florian EbelDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospital of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. florianebel@hotmail.com.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9785-6926
Stephan SchönDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospital of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Neha SharmaDepartment of Oral & Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery and 3D Print Lab, University Hospital of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Raphael GuzmanDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospital of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Luigi MarianiDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospital of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Florian M ThieringerDepartment of Oral & Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery and 3D Print Lab, University Hospital of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Jehuda SolemanDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospital of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Various cranioplasty techniques exist for the reconstruction of cranial bone defects. Patient-specific implants can be produced in-house using a recently developed 3D printer-assisted cranioplasty technique. However, the resulting cosmetic outcomes from the patient's perspective are underreported. With our case series, we aim to present the clinical outcome, morbidity rate, patient-reported cosmetic results, and cost-effectiveness of patient-specific3D printer-assisted cranioplasty technique. This is a consecutive retrospective case series of adult patients undergoing cranioplasty using the patient-specific 3D printer-assisted technique. As primary endpoint, the functional outcome based on modified Rankin scale (mRS) at discharge and follow-up was assessed. A prospective telephone survey was conducted to collect and provide patient-reported outcomes. Thirty-one patients underwent patient-specific 3D printer-assisted cranioplasty, mostly to reconstruct frontotemporoparietal (61.3%) and frontotemporal defects with orbital involvement (19.4%). Good functional outcome (mRS ≤ 2) at discharge and during the last follow-up was achieved in 54.8% (n = 17) and 58.1% (n = 18) patients. Overall, the rate of clinically relevant surgery-related complications was 35.5% (n = 11). Postoperative epidural hematoma/collection (16.1%) and infections (12.9%) were the most frequent complications. Permanent morbidity occurred in one patient (3.2%) with postoperative acute ipsilateral vision loss after frontotemporal cranioplasty with orbital involvement. No surgery-related mortality occurred. The mean patient-reported cosmetic satisfaction score was 7.8 ± 1.5, with 80% of patients reporting satisfying or very satisfying cosmetic results. No significant differences were seen between the different defect localization regarding the cosmetic outcome. The mean manufacturing costs of a patient-specific 3D printer-assisted implant ranged from 748 to 1129 USD. Based on our case series, patient-specific 3D printer-assisted cranioplasty is cost-effective and leads to satisfying cosmetic results, especially in large defects and/or defects with complex geometry.

Indexed as

Plastic Surgery ProceduresAdultHumansPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresProspective StudiesProstheses and ImplantsRetrospective StudiesSkull3D printingBone cementsComputer-assisted surgeryCosmeticCranioplastyPatient-specific implantPoint-of-care implant

Identifiers

PMID37074490
PMCPMC10115682

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.