Article3D printing and additive manufacturing2025
Outcomes and Workflow in a Titanium Powder Bed Fusion Cranial Reparation Surgery Service.
Article in 3D printing and additive manufacturing, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cranial reconstruction, cranioplasty, is conducted to repair skull defects caused by craniectomy following traumatic brain injury, stroke, or postoperative infection. Complications requiring implant removal occur in 10-20% of cases as the optimal cranioplasty material is not known. We describe the Cambridge University Hospital's (CUH) multidisciplinary cranial reparation service and aim to assess the safety of the workflow compared with existing technologies. We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of all patients who underwent cranioplasty via the CUH cranioplasty pathway with cranioplasty implants manufactured utilizing grade 23 Ti-6Al-4V powder bed fusion (PBF) between December 2017 and December 2021. The primary and secondary outcomes were implant removal and the occurrence of cranioplasty infections, respectively. We identified 107 cranioplasty procedures performed in 105 patients, who were followed for a median time of 34.9 months (interquartile range 46.7-17.7, range 2 days to 60.2 months). Twenty-four (22%) patients had at least one complication, and 11 (10%) cranioplasties had been removed because of complications. Thirteen (12%) patients had surgical site infections, but only eight (7%) cranioplasties had to be removed because of infections. Placement of a cerebrospinal fluid shunt (hazard ratio [HR] 8.57, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.36-31.12) and high American Society of Anesthesiologists grade (HR 6.87, 95% CI 1.66-28.39) predicted shorter cranioplasty survival. We demonstrated the largest currently published series of titanium cranioplasties produced using PBF-the overall complication and removal rates (22% and 10%, respectively) were comparable with those reported in the literature. We have embedded the key steps and skills in the cranioplasty process in an academic setting allowing for tailored surgery and flexibility to develop further service innovations in the future. Patients with cerebrospinal fluid shunts and those in poor general condition were at increased risk of infections and subsequent cranioplasty failure.
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.