ReviewAdvances and technical standards in neurosurgery2024
Cranial Repair in Children: Techniques, Materials, and Peculiar Issues.
Review in Advances and technical standards in neurosurgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 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
- Stability of cranial defect size following decompressive craniectomy for traumatic brain injury in the pediatric population: A retrospective study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Gap Expansion Between Cranial Bone and Polyether Ether Ketone Implant in Cranioplasty of Pediatric Patients after Decompressive Craniectomy at Follow-up.Neurotrauma reports · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cranial repair in children deserves particular attention since many issues are still controversial. Furthermore, literature data offer a confused picture of outcome of cranioplasty, in terms of results and complication rates, with studies showing inadequate follow-up and including populations that are not homogeneous by age of the patients, etiology, and size of the bone defect.Indeed, age has merged in the last years as a risk factor for resorption of autologous bone flap that is still the most frequent complication in cranial repair after decompressive craniectomy.Age-related factors play a role also when alloplastic materials are used. In fact, the implantation of alloplastic materials is limited by skull growth under 7 years of age and is contraindicated in the first years if life. Thus, the absence of an ideal material for cranioplasty is even more evident in children with a steady risk of complications through the entire life of the patient that is usually much longer than surgical follow-up.As a result, specific techniques should be adopted according to the age of the patient and etiology of the defect, aiming to repair the skull and respect its residual growth.Thus, autologous bone still represents the best option for cranial repair, though limitations exist. As an alternative, biomimetic materials should ideally warrant the possibility to overcome the limits of other inert alloplastic materials by favoring osteointegration or osteoinduction or both.On these grounds, this paper aims to offer a thorough overview of techniques, materials, and peculiar issues of cranial repair in children.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38700690What 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.