ArticleChinese neurosurgical journal2025
Impact of PEEK implant surface design on postoperative complications in cranioplasty: a retrospective review.
Article in Chinese neurosurgical journal, 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.
- Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) in Cranial Vault Reconstruction: A Review of Alloplastic Materials, Clinical Performance, and Institutional Experience.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate and compare complication rates and clinical outcomes associated with smooth and perforated polyetheretherketone (PEEK) implants used in cranioplasty.
methodsA retrospective analysis of 94 patients who underwent cranioplasty with either smooth (n = 45) or perforated (n = 49) PEEK implants over a five-year period was conducted. Patient demographics, comorbidities, reasons for initial craniectomy, time interval between craniectomy and cranioplasty, postoperative complications, hospital stays, and rates of revision surgeries were analyzed. Multivariate logistic regression was used to control for confounding factors.
resultsNo statistically significant differences were observed in demographic characteristics, reasons for initial craniectomy, or median time to cranioplasty between groups. Complication rates including wound complications, infections, ventriculoperitoneal (VP) shunt placements, significant fluid collections, return to surgery, and implant removals were comparable between groups, though trends suggested potential increases in wound complications (17.8% vs. 8.2%, p = 0.11) and infections (17.8% vs. 8.2%, p = 0.22) in the smooth implant group. Interaction analysis indicated a significant reduction in significant fluid collections with smooth implants in trauma patients (p = 0.045). Importantly, a rare and previously unreported case of malignant cerebral edema following smooth PEEK implant placement was documented.
conclusionsAlthough no statistically significant differences were found, the identified trends toward increased complications with smooth implants and the novel finding of malignant cerebral edema highlight the importance of implant surface characteristics. Further prospective randomized studies are needed to clarify these preliminary observations and guide clinical decision-making in cranioplasty procedures.
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.