ArticleNeurosurgical review2023
Clinical and patient-reported outcome after patient-specific 3D printer-assisted cranioplasty.
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The influence of hypoxia on tissue regeneration in oral and maxillofacial surgery - a systematic review.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Pooled it
- Infection rates following custom-made cranioplasty using heterologous materials: insights from a systematic review on 3260 patients with a focus on follow-up length.Neurosurgical review · 2025Pooled it
- Clinical implementation of an EU MDR-compliant point-of-care manufacturing framework for patient-specific 3D-printed PEEK implants in craniomaxillofacial reconstruction.3D printing in medicine · 2026Article
- Academic Point-of-Care Manufacturing in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery: A Retrospective Review at Gregorio Marañón University Hospital.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- A Detailed Study of Infection Following Custom-Made Porous Hydroxyapatite Cranioplasty: Risk Factors and How to Possibly Avoid Device Explantation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Advances in 3D Printing Applications for Personalized Orthopedic Surgery: From Anatomical Modeling to Patient-Specific Implants.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Customized 3D-printed Poly ether ether ketone cranial implant for cranioplasty of skull defects.Neurosurgical review · 2025Article
- Biocompatibility and antimicrobial efficacy of iodine-supported titania nanotubes on 3D-printed Ti-6Al-4V implants.PloS one · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.