Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMC

The Materials Utilized in Cranial Reconstruction: Past, Current, and Future

Meyer H., Khalid SI., Dorafshar AH., Byrne RW.

Narrative Review on Face & Skin, published in Plast Surg (Oakv) (2021) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Narrative Review
Journal
Plast Surg (Oakv) (2021)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
34568234
PMCID
PMC8436325
DOI
10.1177/2292550320928560
Citations
18

Abstract (original English)

Background Cranioplasty (CP) is associated with high complication rates compared to other common neurosurgical procedures. Several graft materials are used for CP, which may contribute to the high complication rates, but data in the literature regarding the influence of graft material on post-CP outcomes are inconsistent making it difficult to determine if, when, and to what extent the graft material impacts the rate of perioperative complications. There is an increased demand to identify and develop superior graft materials. Objective To review and compare the indications, risks, complications, and patient results associated with the use of different graft materials for cranial reconstructions. Design A search through EBSCO host was conducted using the keywords "craniectomy" or "decompressive craniectomy," "cranioplasty," and "materials." The search was limited to literature published in the English language from 2005 until the present. Ultimately, 69 articles were included in this review. Due to the heterogeneity of the study populations, results, statistical analyses, and collecting methods, no statistical analyses could be performed. Conclusions Several graft materials have been adapted for use in cranial reconstructions with inconsistent results making it unclear if or when one material may be indicated over others. Advances in computer-aided design have led to improved pa

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research