ArticleArchives of plastic surgery2026
Preservation versus Structural Cranioplasty: A New Concept for Craniosynostosis Treatment.
Article in Archives of plastic surgery, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Craniosynostosis, a condition characterized by the premature closure of one or more cranial sutures, can be classified based on the affected suture, the number of sutures involved, or the presence of syndromic features. Although numerous surgical techniques have evolved to address cranial deformities, there remains a need for systematic categorization of these approaches. This review aims to explore current craniosynostosis treatments, evaluate their respective advantages and disadvantages, and propose a new classification distinguishing preservation cranioplasty from structural cranioplasty. The choice between preservation and structural cranioplasty is influenced by factors such as patient age, complexity of suture involvement, and resource availability. Preservation cranioplasty techniques, including suturectomy and distraction osteogenesis, prioritize maintaining cranial vault integrity and minimizing dural detachment, thus reducing surgical risks and facilitating natural cranial growth. Conversely, structural cranioplasty involves extensive bone displacement and dural exposure, offering effective correction for complex deformities and syndromic cases but with increased procedural risks. We propose categorizing craniosynostosis surgical treatments into two primary approaches: Preservation and structural cranioplasty. Preservation cranioplasty focuses on minimal invasion to support natural brain and skull development, while structural cranioplasty involves extensive remodeling necessary for severe or syndromic cases. Understanding these paradigms enables better-tailored treatment strategies and may improve long-term craniofacial outcomes.
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.