ArticleChinese neurosurgical journal2025
A comparative study of a novel absorbable cranial flap fixation system and Aesculap CranioFix.
Article in Chinese neurosurgical journal, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAbsorbable cranial flap fixation products, represented by Aesculap
methodsIn this study, the absorbable cranial flap fixation system of MedArt was used as the experimental group, and the CranioFix absorbable clamp constituted the control group. The material properties and the changing trend of mechanical properties of the two groups were compared by accelerated degradation experiments in vitro. A multicenter, randomized, parallel, positive-controlled, non-inferiority clinical study was conducted with a 48-week follow-up. The shortening degree of the bone flap gap, qualified rate of bone flap displacement, changing trend of implant volume, and occurrence of postoperative adverse events were compared between the two groups.
resultsThe results of the in vitro accelerated degradation showed that in terms of the decrease in intrinsic viscosity, the control and experimental groups took 7 days and 14 days, respectively, to reach the test endpoint. For mechanical properties, the control group and experimental groups lost clinical safety fixation significance on the 3rd and 4th day after the degradation began, respectively. Regarding the release of degradation products, the control group showed a burst of lactic acid release during the first 3-7 days, while the experimental group released lactic acid slowly and constantly. In the clinical study, 90 patients were randomly enrolled, 87 of whom completed the operation, with an average age of 50. The 3D reconstruction of CT images showed that the bone flap gaps in both groups were less than 2 mm after surgery. The qualified rate of bone flap displacement in the experimental group was 100% after surgery. In contrast, in the control group, there was one unqualified case at 1 week after surgery and two unqualified cases at 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 24 weeks, and 48 weeks. The residual volume of the implant in the experimental group was closer to 50% (about 48.8%) 48 weeks after surgery, than in the control group (about 43.9%) 12 weeks after surgery. Regarding safety, only one possible device-related adverse event occurred in the control group, with an incidence rate of 2.22%, manifested as poor healing at the incision site.
conclusionsThe study has verified that the experimental group had better stability, longer biodegradation time, and better mechanical properties than the control group. Moreover, the experimental group could significantly narrow the cranial flap gap, reduce the flap displacement, and promote skull healing after craniotomy. It shows a fairly reliable fixation effect and safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: Registry: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, registration number: ChiCTR2500099674, and date of registration: 27 March 2025 ( https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=261082 ).
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.