ArticleBrain & spine2025
Cost-effectiveness of cranial implants compared with autologous bone grafts.
Article in Brain & spine, 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.
- Bone flap resorption and its risk factors following autologous cranioplasty with bone tissue bank-stored grafts.Neurosurgical review · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Autografts are considered more cost-effective than cranial implants due to the use of the patient's own bone. However, autografts are associated with a higher revision surgery rate because of their intrinsic risk of resorption. As revision surgeries imply additional hospital stays and therefore higher costs, autografts may be less cost-effective than cranial implants. Research question: To analyze the cost-effectiveness of cranial implants compared with autografts. Material and methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent cranioplasty between 2014 and 2020. We collected data on the costs of cranioplasty using each patient's diagnosis and treatment combination (DBC) code. We used the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) to assess cost-effectiveness, which was calculated as the ratio of incremental cost and incremental effect of using a cranial implant instead of an autograft. Results: A total of 168 patients were included (mean age 43.0 ± 20.0 years). The median cost of the first cranioplasty procedure was €6249.37 (IQR €5250.64 - €8551.36) for cranial implants and €6261.36 (IQR €5189.14 - €7792.10) for autografts (p = 0.094). The median total cost of all health care related to the cranioplasty procedure was €6460.64 (IQR €6039.68 - €9533.03) for cranial implants and €12,075.01 (IQR €6409.63 - €16,420.71) for autografts (p < 0.001). The ICER of cranial implants compared with autografts was -€7663.22 per revision surgery avoided. Discussion and conclusion: This study found that the use of cranial implants is at a lower cost and more clinically effective than the use of autologous bone grafts.
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.