ArticleBrain & spine2025
The current state of cranioplasty in Europe - Results from a European cranioplasty survey.
Article in Brain & spine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Cranioplasty, a surgical procedure to restore skull integrity and aesthetic contour following decompressive craniectomy, poses challenges in material selection and timing, driven by the lack of guidelines and ongoing regulatory changes. Research question: This study aimed to provide an overview of current cranioplasty practices in Europe, explicitly addressing a potential shift towards alloplastic materials and the management of patients with concomitant hydrocephalus. Material and methods: An online survey was conducted among European neurosurgical centers from January to March 2024, collecting data on material preferences, timing of procedures, and management strategies for cranioplasty. Descriptive and statistical analyses were performed on 110 complete responses. Results: Respondents favored alloplastic materials over autologous bone for cranioplasty, citing regulatory constraints and reduced infection risk as primary reasons. Variability was observed in the timing of procedures and the management of patients with hydrocephalus, with most centers adopting staged approaches. Discussion and conclusion: The shift towards alloplastic materials in cranioplasty reflects regulatory pressures rather than material-specific considerations. Despite variability in practice, our findings underscore the need for standardized guidelines and further research to optimize patient outcomes. This study provides valuable insights into current practices and highlights areas for future investigation in cranioplasty.
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.