ArticleActa neurochirurgica2025
Balancing form and function: A single-center review of autologous vs. synthetic grafts in cranioplasty.
Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Autologous skull graft resorption following cranioplasty: a case report and literature review.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Autologous bone flap salvage strategies in postcraniotomy surgical site infections: A scoping review.Surgical neurology international · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCranioplasty is performed to restore cranial integrity following decompressive hemicraniectomy, with both autologous bone grafts (ABGs) and synthetic grafts (SGs) serving as reconstructive options. While previous studies have examined clinical outcomes, there is a lack of robust data comparing aesthetic outcomes and complication rates between ABGs and SGs. This study evaluates these parameters to guide optimal graft selection.
methodA single-center retrospective review was conducted on patients who underwent cranioplasty with either ABGs or SGs between January 2017 and November 2023. Patient demographics, perioperative variables, and postoperative complications were collected. Aesthetic outcomes were assessed using axial CT scans to measure frontal and parietal asymmetry. Statistical analyses included univariate and multivariate comparisons, adjusting for potential confounders such as age, cerebrovascular accident (CVA) history, hypertension (HTN), atrial fibrillation (AFib), ventriculoperitoneal (VP) shunt status, and insurance type.
resultsAmong 200 patients, 82 (41.0%) received ABGs, and 118 (59.0%) received SGs. Frontal and parietal asymmetry scores did not significantly differ between groups (p = 0.321, p = 0.348). Median time to cranioplasty was shorter for ABGs than SGs (106.5 vs. 117 days; p = 0.038). Postoperative complications were significantly higher in the SG group compared to ABGs (30.5% vs. 9.8%; p = 0.001), with infections being more frequent in SGs (p = 0.048). SGs were also associated with a higher rate of revision surgeries.
conclusionsABGs and SGs provide comparable aesthetic outcomes, but SGs carry a significantly higher risk of complications and revisions. Given its lower complication rates and cost-effectiveness, ABGs should be prioritized when feasible. However, SGs remain a viable option in cases where autologous bone is unavailable or contraindicated. Future studies should focus on long-term follow-up and patient-reported outcomes to further refine cranioplasty decision-making.
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.