ArticleJournal of cerebrovascular and endovascular neurosurgery2026
Outcomes of cranioplasty with customized artificial bone flap made by 3D printing technique in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage.
Article in Journal of cerebrovascular and endovascular neurosurgery, 2026. 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
objectiveThis study compared clinical and cosmetic outcomes of cranioplasty using customized three-dimensional (3-D) printed implants versus autologous bone in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) after decompressive craniectomy (DC).
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 50 patients who underwent cranioplasty after DC for aSAH between July 2018 and December 2023. Patients were divided into the three-dimensional cranioplasty(3-DC, n=26) and autologous bone cranioplasty (AC, n=24) groups. Demographics, aneurysm characteristics, surgical parameters, morphometric analysis of defect coverage, complications, and functional outcomes assessed by the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) were compared.
resultsA total of 54 hemispheres underwent cranioplasty. Compared with AC, the 3-DC group had larger defects but achieved higher coverage (96.7% vs. 93.4%, p=0.044) and smaller residual defects (338.7±274.2 mm² vs. 528.5±331.3 mm², p=0.049). Complication rates were lower in 3-DC (9 cases) than AC (15 cases, p=0.0994). Wound dehiscence and fluid collection were more frequent with 3-DC, while bone flap resorption and epidural abscess occurred only with AC. Revision surgery was required in six patients, five initially treated with autologous bone. Neurological outcomes (mRS) were maintained or improved in both groups.
conclusionsIn aSAH patients undergoing cranioplasty after DC, customized 3-D printed implants achieved significantly better anatomical restoration and showed a numerical trend toward fewer complications compared with autologous bone. While AC remains feasible, its risks of resorption and infection often necessitate revision. 3-D printed implants may be considered a reasonable alternative, particularly in aSAH patients at higher risk of complications.
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.