ArticleJournal of neurosurgery. Case lessons2025
Osteogenic biodegradable plates for cranioplasty in 6 patients across different age groups: clinical failure of promising concept? Patient series.
Article in Journal of neurosurgery. Case lessons, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReconstruction of cranial bone defects after craniotomy remains a contemporary neurosurgical challenge, necessitating an ongoing search for optimal synthetic materials that ensure effective healing, minimal postoperative complications, and satisfactory cosmetic outcomes. This issue is particularly critical in pediatric patients, in whom the dynamic nature of skull growth presents additional reconstructive complexities. Biodegradable implants with osteogenic and osteoconductive properties represent a promising solution, aiming to reduce complications commonly associated with rigid materials, such as skull deformation, and to enable gradual replacement of implants with native bone tissue. OBSERVATIONS: In this study, the authors report a series of 6 cranioplasty procedures utilizing CyberBone implants, involving 4 pediatric patients of varying ages and 2 adults. Despite the theoretical advantages of these implants, their clinical experience did not meet expectations in terms of mechanical stability, aesthetic outcomes, or evidence of osteointegration. LESSONS: Complications of varying severity, including implant deformation, resorption without adequate bone substitution, and poor cosmetic results, occurred in all patients. Based on these outcomes, the authors do not recommend CyberBone implants for routine clinical use in cranial reconstructions. Further material refinement and comprehensive safety studies are warranted before considering broader implementation in pediatric and adult populations. https://thejns.org/doi/10.3171/CASE25570.
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.