ArticleNeurosurgical review2025
Customized 3D-printed Poly ether ether ketone cranial implant for cranioplasty of skull defects.
Article in Neurosurgical review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Novel Design Strategy for Customized Polyetheretherketone Implants in Paranasal Augmentation Through Surgeon-Engineer Collaboration.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cranioplasty become one of the common surgeries in the neurosurgical field. The complex configuration of the cranium makes the bone reconstruction of the skull defects a challenging procedure. While the patient's own bone flap is the best option, other materials such as titanium and Poly ether ether Ketone (PEEK) were used for cranioplasty when the autogenous flap of the patient is unavailable. Recently, customized 3D printing implants were developed for cranioplasty with favorable outcomes. In this study, we evaluated the outcome of customized 3-dimentional (3D)-printed PEEK implant cranioplasty for reconstructing skull defects, especially large ones. We report a series of 27 patients whose skull defects were reconstructed by a customized 3D-printed PEEK implants. Demographic data and postoperative clinical and imaging findings were reviewed. We analyzed the complications, clinical and aesthetic outcomes during mid-term follow-up. During the surgery, all the implants were perfectly fitted in the skull defect without any major modification. Aesthetic results were satisfactory in 74.1% of patients. 4 patients (14.8%) had complications, including 3 deep cranial infections (11.1%) and one extradural hematoma (3,7%). In 2 patients (7.4%), the implants were removed due to infection. Therefore, when autologous bone is unavailable or, in selected cases with large or complex skull defects, customized 3D-printed PEEK implants could be a proper option to reconstruct these defects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40090957What 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.