SynthesisNeurosurgical review2025
Meta-analyses of the surgical outcomes using personalized 3D-printed titanium and PEEK vs. standard implants in cranial reconstruction in patients undergoing craniectomy.
Synthesis 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.
- Cranial Bone Repair and Regeneration After Trauma: Forensic and Clinical Medico-Legal Consequences.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
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
The introduction of 3D-printing technology in cranial reconstruction introduces novel opportunities to optimize surgical outcomes. This meta-analysis investigates the efficacy of 3D-printed titanium and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) implants versus standard non-3D-printed implants in cranial reconstructions following craniectomy. A systematic search across PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Scopus was conducted, identifying studies between 2003 and 2024 meeting the inclusion criteria. 9 studies and a total of 942 patients were included in our analysis, of which 318 received 3D-printed implants and 624 underwent standard cranioplasties. Our results showed that 3D-printed titanium implants significantly reduced total complication rates (OR: 0.26, p = 0.0009) compared to standard implants, whilst 3D-printed PEEK implants presented with no statistical difference in comparison to standard implants (OR: 1.02, p = 0.972). Similarly, 3D-printed implants showed a significant decrease in infection rates compared to standard implants (OR: 0.33, p = 0.0238). However, 3D-printed implants were also associated with increased risk of effusion (OR: 2.20, p = 0.0103). There were no other significant differences in complications such as epilepsy, hematoma, or dehiscence. Although these findings suggest the potential benefits of 3D-printed implants in cranioplasty, specifically those of titanium implants, the quality of the current literature on the topic is relatively poor with the majority of studies being single-center retrospective studies. Therefore, prospective randomized control studies are required to confirm these trends and elucidate the comparative efficacy of this technique to standard treatment. Keywords: Cranioplasty; Cranial Reconstruction; 3D Printing; Personalized; Titanium; PEEK.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40116998What 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.