Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41181848›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2025

The timing of cranioplasty and the risk of postoperative complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Chongxian Hou, Hongyi Cai, Jing'an Ye, Yang Liu, Chengcheng Ma, Taoliang Chen, Hao Wang, Weijian Luo, Lu Yang, Zihao Hu and 4 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Chongxian HouDepartment of Neurosurgery, Shenzhen Neurosurgical Training and Innovation Center, Guangdong Engineering Technological Research Center for Nervous Anatomy and Related Clinical Applications, Shenzhen People's Hospital, (The First Affiliated Hospital, Southern University of Science and Technology; The Second Clinical Medical College, Jinan University), Shenzhen, Guangdong Province, 518020, PR China.
Hongyi CaiThe National Key Clinical Specialty, The Engineering Technology Research Centre of Education Ministry of China, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory on Brain Function Repair and Regeneration, Department of Neurosurgery, Zhujiang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, 510282, PR China.
Jing'an YeDepartment of Neurosurgery, Affiliated Dongguan Hospital, Southern Medical University, (Dongguan People's Hospital), Dongguan, Guangdong Province, 523059, PR China.
Yang LiuThe National Key Clinical Specialty, The Engineering Technology Research Centre of Education Ministry of China, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory on Brain Function Repair and Regeneration, Department of Neurosurgery, Zhujiang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, 510282, PR China.
Chengcheng MaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Shenzhen Neurosurgical Training and Innovation Center, Guangdong Engineering Technological Research Center for Nervous Anatomy and Related Clinical Applications, Shenzhen People's Hospital, (The First Affiliated Hospital, Southern University of Science and Technology; The Second Clinical Medical College, Jinan University), Shenzhen, Guangdong Province, 518020, PR China.
Taoliang ChenThe National Key Clinical Specialty, The Engineering Technology Research Centre of Education Ministry of China, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory on Brain Function Repair and Regeneration, Department of Neurosurgery, Zhujiang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, 510282, PR China.
Hao WangDepartment of Neurosurgery, Shenzhen Neurosurgical Training and Innovation Center, Guangdong Engineering Technological Research Center for Nervous Anatomy and Related Clinical Applications, Shenzhen People's Hospital, (The First Affiliated Hospital, Southern University of Science and Technology; The Second Clinical Medical College, Jinan University), Shenzhen, Guangdong Province, 518020, PR China.
Weijian LuoDepartment of Neurosurgery, Shenzhen Neurosurgical Training and Innovation Center, Guangdong Engineering Technological Research Center for Nervous Anatomy and Related Clinical Applications, Shenzhen People's Hospital, (The First Affiliated Hospital, Southern University of Science and Technology; The Second Clinical Medical College, Jinan University), Shenzhen, Guangdong Province, 518020, PR China.
Lu YangDepartment of Neurosurgery, Shenzhen Neurosurgical Training and Innovation Center, Guangdong Engineering Technological Research Center for Nervous Anatomy and Related Clinical Applications, Shenzhen People's Hospital, (The First Affiliated Hospital, Southern University of Science and Technology; The Second Clinical Medical College, Jinan University), Shenzhen, Guangdong Province, 518020, PR China.
Zihao HuThe National Key Clinical Specialty, The Engineering Technology Research Centre of Education Ministry of China, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory on Brain Function Repair and Regeneration, Department of Neurosurgery, Zhujiang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, 510282, PR China.
Yiquan KeThe National Key Clinical Specialty, The Engineering Technology Research Centre of Education Ministry of China, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory on Brain Function Repair and Regeneration, Department of Neurosurgery, Zhujiang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, 510282, PR China.
Dong ZhouDepartment of Neurosurgery, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital (Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences), Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, 510080, PR China.
Jiliang HuDepartment of Neurosurgery, Shenzhen Neurosurgical Training and Innovation Center, Guangdong Engineering Technological Research Center for Nervous Anatomy and Related Clinical Applications, Shenzhen People's Hospital, (The First Affiliated Hospital, Southern University of Science and Technology; The Second Clinical Medical College, Jinan University), Shenzhen, Guangdong Province, 518020, PR China.
Tianwei WangThe National Key Clinical Specialty, The Engineering Technology Research Centre of Education Ministry of China, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory on Brain Function Repair and Regeneration, Department of Neurosurgery, Zhujiang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, 510282, PR China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The ideal timeframe for performing cranioplasty (CP) following decompressive craniectomy (DC) remains to be conclusively determined. We aimed to investigate the association between timing of CP and the risk of postoperative complications after CP. Insight into the association between them will guide timing of CP to improve the outcome of patients. Methods: Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched from January 1st, 1990 to June 30th, 2025. Studies reporting the association between the timing of CP and the risk of postoperative complications, and the rate of participants with complications for each DC-CP time interval (≤1 month vs. >1 month, ≤1.5 months vs. >1.5 months, ≤2 months vs. >2 months, ≤3 months vs. >3 months, ≤6 months vs. >6 months) were involved. A random-effects model was applied to the meta-analysis. The protocol of this study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024558653). Findings: A total of 65 studies were included. The results of the meta-analysis suggested that CP performed within 1 month (vs. CP performed beyond 1 month) after DC was associated with a reduced risk of PCs (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.35-1.09), although this association was not statistically significant. Compared to CP performed more than 3 months after DC, CP performed within 3 months after DC did not show a significantly reduced or increased risk of overall postoperative complications (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.80-1.34). However, compared to CP performed beyond 3 months after DC, CP performed within 3 months was associated with an increased risk of postoperative hydrocephalus (OR 1.59, 95% CI 0.97-2.59), although this association did not reach statistical significance. Interpretation: CP performed within 1 month (vs. CP performed beyond 1 month) after DC was probably associated with a reduced risk of overall PCs. CP performed within 3 months (vs. CP performed beyond 3 months) did not show a significantly reduced or increased risk of overall PCs compared to CP performed more than 3 months. While, CP performed within 3 months (vs. CP performed beyond 3 months) was probably associated with an increased risk of postoperative hydrocephalus. Funding: President Foundation of ZhuJiang Hospital, Southern Medical University (yzjj2023qn26), Science and Technology Program of Guangzhou (No. 2024A04J4801), Basic Research of Shenzhen Natural Science Foundation (Surface Project, No. JCYJ20210324114008023), and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 82403092).

Indexed as

HydrocephalusMeta-analysisPostoperative complicationsTiming of cranioplastyTraumatic brain injury

Identifiers

PMID41181848
PMCPMC12572796

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.