SynthesisThe Journal of craniofacial surgery
Outcomes of Hydroxyapatite Bone Cement for Craniofacial Reconstruction in 1983 Patients.
Synthesis in The Journal of craniofacial surgery. 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.
- Long-term outcomes following custom-made porous hydroxyapatite cranioplasty: a single-center experience of 234 consecutive cranioplasty procedures.Neurosurgical review · 2026Article
- The Importance of Plastic Surgery in Multidisciplinary Teams: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Comparative Studies.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- Next-generation craniomaxillofacial implants for reconstructive surgery: balancing biomechanics, biocompatibility, and bioactivity.International journal of oral science · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHydroxyapatite bone cement (HABC) has evolved to have diverse applications in craniofacial reconstruction. This ranges from filling cranial defects to secondary contouring of residual defects after primary surgeries. This study aims to determine patient outcomes after reconstruction with HABCs.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were queried. The results were limited to English-language literature with extractable data on HABC for craniofacial reconstruction.
resultsA total of 1983 patients were included in the final analysis from 35 studies. HABCs were mostly used for large defect cranioplasty (21.5%), retrosigmoid (44.6%) and translabyrinthine cranioplasty (8.9%), and correction of residual craniofacial defects after congenital craniofacial surgeries (25%). The rates of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak and infection/explantation were 0% and 7.5% [95% CI: 2.4-11.8] for large defect cranioplasty and 0.8% [0.03-2.07] and 1.5% [95% CI: 0.92-3.3] for retrosigmoid cranioplasty, respectively. The infection/explantation rate was 6.2% [95% CI: 2.6-18.7] for HABCs in the correction of residual craniofacial defects after congenital craniofacial surgeries. The total reoperation rates were 20.4% % [95% CI: 4.8-11.8] for large defect cranioplasty and 12% [95% CI: 3.3-15.3] for correction of residual defects after congenital craniofacial surgeries. Aesthetic satisfaction rates were 93.1% [95% CI: 90.3-98.8] for large defect cranioplasty, 99.4% [95% CI 97.2-99.9] for retrosigmoid cranioplasty, and 92.6% [95% CI: 83.3-95.8] for HABC use in the correction of residual craniofacial defects after congenital craniofacial surgeries.
conclusionHABC is versatile and associated with a high level of patient reported aesthetic satisfaction after cranioplasty and may have a comparably lower complication profile than those of most other alloplastic materials.
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.