ArticleNeurosurgery practice2025
Comparative Analysis of Disposable Cranial Perforators in Trepanation.
Article in Neurosurgery practice, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesCranial trepanation is a fundamental neurosurgical procedure that has evolved significantly with the development of disposable cranial perforators designed to enhance safety and efficiency. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the safety, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness of disposable cranial perforators used in neurosurgical procedures.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 129 trepanations performed by a single surgeon between May and December 2024, using 3 disposable cranial perforators: Codman (Integra LifeSciences Production Corporation), MERIDIAN (adeor medical AG), and ACRA-CUT (ACRA-CUT Inc.). Clinical parameters assessed included trepanation success rates, operative times, and complication rates. In addition, a cadaveric study examined the impact of varying drilling angles on dural integrity. Structural distinctions among perforators were investigated using digital microscopy.
resultsACRA-CUT was approximately twice as expensive as Codman and MERIDIAN. Clinically, Codman demonstrated the lowest success rate (69%) compared with MERIDIAN (97.7%) and ACRA-CUT (100%). ACRA-CUT also achieved the shortest median trepanation time (11.8 seconds) compared with Codman (74.6 seconds) and MERIDIAN (26.4 seconds). However, the cadaveric analysis revealed a higher incidence of dural injury with ACRA-CUT at oblique angles. Structural analysis highlighted ACRA-CUT's distinctive acute tip and tri-curved blade design, correlating with its superior performance but an increased risk profile.
conclusionACRA-CUT offers unparalleled efficiency and speed, but its high cost and greater propensity for dural injury at nonperpendicular angles necessitate cautious application. MERIDIAN emerges as a safer choice for routine procedures, whereas Codman, despite being cost-effective, is hindered by its lower success rate and potential for prolonged operative times. Further randomized studies are warranted to validate these findings and optimize perforator selection.
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.