SynthesisNeurosurgical review2026
Timing of cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy and neurological recovery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Decompressive craniectomy (DC) creates a large skull defect that may alter cerebral physiology and impair neurological recovery. Cranioplasty (CP) may reverse these effects and enhance functional and cognitive outcomes; however, the optimal timing remains uncertain. Prior systematic reviews have been limited in scope and have not fully examined cognitive outcomes, ultra-early CP (< 45 days), or traumatic brain injury (TBI)-specific effects. We conducted an updated. Systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251130762). MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS were searched. Eligible studies included adults undergoing CP after DC with extractable timing comparisons (early ≤ 90 days vs. late > 90 days). Functional and cognitive outcomes were assessed using validated instruments. Two reviewers independently performed study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale). Statistical analyses were conducted in R (metafor). Twenty-one studies (1682 patients; 691 early, 991 late) were included. CP, regardless of timing, was associated with significant neurological improvement. In post-CP analyses, early CP demonstrated significantly better outcomes across several functional scales, including BI, FIM, and KPS, and across pooled functional scores (SMD = 0.52 [0.21-0.83], I² = 87.2%). Cognitive recovery assessed by MMSE also favored early CP (SMD = 0.57 [0.34-0.79], I² = 0%). In TBI-only analyses, the effect remained significant (SMD = 0.74 [0.32-1.15], I² = 88.5%). Ultra-early CP showed a favorable but non-significant trend. Heterogeneity was substantial across analyses. Cranioplasty after DC is associated with significant functional and cognitive improvement. Early cranioplasty (≤ 3 months) is associated with better neurological outcomes than delayed reconstruction, with consistent effects across functional scales and in TBI populations. While these findings are biologically plausible, causality remains uncertain as evidence remains largely observational and with substantial heterogeneity. Well-designed multicenter randomized trials are needed to define optimal timing and strengthen clinical guidance.
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.