SynthesisMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2026
Complications of Alloplastic Graft Materials Used in Cranioplasty: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Material type versus defect size in adult cranioplasty: a multi-institutional analysis of 30-day outcomes and risk prediction modeling.JPRAS open · 2026Article
- Sonolucent Cranioplasties in Young Children: Technical Nuances and Challenges.Neurosurgery practice · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Autologous bone grafts are commonly associated with higher complication rates than alloplastic materials in cranioplasty. While previous systematic reviews have shown favorable outcomes with alloplastic grafts, there is limited comparative data on the performance of different alloplastic materials. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to assess the efficacy of alloplastic materials used in cranioplasty, focusing on complications, re-surgery, and implant exposure. MATERIAL AND METHODS Following PRISMA and PRISMA for network meta-analyses (NMA), we searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science (January 2015-January 2025). Eligibility criteria were adult cranioplasty cohorts comparing 2 or more alloplastic materials and reporting at least 1 pre-specified outcome: infection, overall complications, implant exposure, or re-surgery. Data extracted a priori included study design, indication, implant material (polyetheretherketone, titanium, hydroxyapatite, polymethylmethacrylate [porous and hard], ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene), follow-up, and event counts per outcome. Random-effects models estimated pooled effects; NMA generated P-scores/SUCRA ranks. Heterogeneity (I²), transitivity, and incoherence were assessed. Risk of bias was measured with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS From 1025 studies, 24 studies met the inclusion criteria. The highest complication rates were reported for polymethylmethacrylate, hydroxyapatite, and titanium, although differences were not statistically significant. SUCRA rankings suggested the lowest infection rates with polyetheretherketone and titanium. Meta-regression indicated that polymethylmethacrylate was associated with higher incidence of infection. Network analysis showed titanium had maximum implant exposure. Polymethylmethacrylate (P-score=0.79) and hydroxyapatite (P-score=0.73) carried the highest re-surgery risks. CONCLUSIONS Polymethylmethacrylate and hydroxyapatite were associated with higher infection and re-surgery rates, while titanium showed greater implant exposure.
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.