ArticleBrain & spine2025
Patient-specific titanium-reinforced calcium-phosphate (CaP: Ti) implants for revision cranioplasty.
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.
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
Introduction: Cranioplasty is a common neurosurgical procedure, but infections can complicate it, necessitating revision surgery. Alloplastic patient-specific implants (PSI) are increasingly utilized, and different materials are available. This study evaluates the role of titanium-reinforced calcium-phosphate (CaP:Ti) implants in revision cranioplasty. Research question: Assessing the efficacy and safety of CaP:Ti PSI in patients requiring revision cranioplasty following complications with previously failed cranioplasty attempts. Material and methods: Retrospective analysis of 15 patients who underwent CaP:Ti PSI implantation for revision cranioplasty between 2016 and 2022 at a single neurosurgical department. Data on demographics, perioperative details, and outcomes were collected and assessed. Differences in distribution were assessed using Fisher's exact test, and groups were numerically compared using student's t-test. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: In most patients, CP failure occurred early (38 days) following elective craniotomy for tumor and vascular procedures. The first revision cranioplasty was conducted in 12 cases using CaP:Ti PSI in 8 cases successfully requiring no further revision. Three cases implanted with other alloplastic materials required revision and received CaP:Ti PSI in the second (n = 2) or third (n = 1) CP attempt. The overall success rate for CaP:Ti PSI was 73.3% over more than two years of follow-up. success rate in revision cranioplasty. Surgical site complications, predominantly infections, were the main cause of CP failure. The average interval between implant removal and re-cranioplasty was 300 days. Prehabilitation using skin expanders and postoperative antibiotic use were strategies successfully utilized in this cohort. Discussion and conclusion: Our findings suggest that CaP:Ti PSI implants hold promise in salvaging complicated cranioplasty in most cases despite challenges such as infection and implant failure. The use of techniques like skin expanders may contribute to better outcomes. However, further research is crucial to establish optimal timing and patient selection guidelines in revision cranioplasty using CaP:Ti implants, which could significantly impact future neurosurgical practices.
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.