ArticleActa neurochirurgica2024
Complication rates after autologous cranioplasty following decompressive craniectomy.
Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 2024. 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.
- Bone flap resorption and its risk factors following autologous cranioplasty with bone tissue bank-stored grafts.Neurosurgical review · 2026Article
- Autologous skull graft resorption following cranioplasty: a case report and literature review.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Rapid neuralized and vascularized osteogenesis in infected bone defect using biomimetic biomineralized and antibacterial hydrogels.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe reimplantation of autologous bone grafts after decompressive craniectomy (DC) is still up for debate. The objective of this study was to analyze the surgical revision rate for autologous cranioplasties in our center, aiming to identify predictors for procedure-related-complications.
methodsA retrospective single-center study was conducted for adult patients who underwent autologous cranioplasty after DC. The primary endpoint was the complication rate in terms of surgical revision and removal of the bone graft: infection, new onset seizures, dislocation, haemorrhage, osteolysis, wound dehiscence and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) fistula. Demographic data, medical records, surgical reports and imaging studies were analysed and risk factors for complications were evaluated.
results169 consecutive patients were included. The median interval between DC and cranioplasty was 84 days. Mean age was 51 ± 12.4 years. 26 patients (15.3%) had revision surgery for following reasons. n = 9 implant dislocations (5.3%), n = 7 osteolysis (3.6%), n = 6 infections (3.6%), n = 5 had re-bleedings (3%), n = 5 wound dehiscences (3%), and n = 2 CSF fistulas (1.2%). 18 patients developed new seizures (10.7%). Bi- and multivariate analysis revealed three independent risk factors, simultaneous ventriculo-peritoneal (VP) shunting increased the risk for material dislocation (p < 0.001); large bone grafts (> 193.5 cm
conclusionThe complication rates in our study were comparable to previously reported data for autologous or artificial cranioplasties. As osteolysis was correlated to larger bone grafts, a synthetic alternative should be considered in selected cases.
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.