278 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30315976)
41. Prevalence of Postoperative Complications of Autologous and Heterologous Cranioplasty in the Pediatric Population: A Systematic Review of the Literature.
Zaed I; Faedo F; Chibbaro S; Cannizzaro D; Tomei M; Servadei F; Cardia A
Pediatr Neurosurg; 2022; 57(4):238-244. PubMed ID: 35609519
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. Custom-Made Porous Hydroxyapatite Cranioplasty in Patients with Tumor Versus Traumatic Brain Injury: A Single-Center Case Series.
Rossini Z; Franzini A; Zaed I; Zingaretti N; Nicolosi F; Zanotti B
World Neurosurg; 2020 Jun; 138():e922-e929. PubMed ID: 32272268
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. Skull Reconstruction Using a Custom-Made, Three-Dimensional-Printed, Hydroxyapatite-Titanium Cranioplasty Implant: Largest Single-Center U.S. Experience.
Sorek S; Miller A; Griepp D; Moawad S; Zanzerkia R; Rahme R
World Neurosurg; 2022 Nov; 167():e1387-e1394. PubMed ID: 36115561
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. Multi-stage Preparation for the Repair of Complicated Skull Defects.
Sakamoto Y; Arnaud E
Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo); 2019 May; 59(5):172-175. PubMed ID: 30867358
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. Cranioplasty with autogenous bone flaps cryopreserved in povidone iodine: a long-term follow-up study.
Zhang J; Peng F; Liu Z; Luan J; Liu X; Fei C; Heng X
J Neurosurg; 2017 Dec; 127(6):1449-1456. PubMed ID: 28186447
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. Cranioplasty using custom-made hydroxyapatite versus titanium: a randomized clinical trial.
Lindner D; Schlothofer-Schumann K; Kern BC; Marx O; Müns A; Meixensberger J
J Neurosurg; 2017 Jan; 126(1):175-183. PubMed ID: 26918471
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. Autologous Skull Bone Flap Sterilization After Decompressive Craniectomy: An Update.
Missori P; Marruzzo D; Paolini S; Seferi A; Fricia M; Chiara M; Palmarini V; Domenicucci M
World Neurosurg; 2016 Jun; 90():478-483. PubMed ID: 27016310
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. [First Experience with Cranioplasty Using the Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) Implant - Retrospective Five-Year Follow-up Study].
Šámal F; Ouzký M; Strnad J; Haninec P; Linzer P; Filip M
Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech; 2019; 86(6):431-434. PubMed ID: 31941571
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. 3D-Printer-Assisted Patient-Specific Polymethyl Methacrylate Cranioplasty: A Case Series of 16 Consecutive Patients.
Schön SN; Skalicky N; Sharma N; Zumofen DW; Thieringer FM
World Neurosurg; 2021 Apr; 148():e356-e362. PubMed ID: 33418118
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Customised Cranioplasty Implant for Decompressive Craniectomy Patients ? A Technical Note.
Mohammad K
Turk Neurosurg; 2019; 29(1):148-150. PubMed ID: 28481392
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. An algorithmic approach of reconstruction for cranioplasty failure: A case series.
Wang YC; Wu YC; Chang CW; Chung CL; Lee SS
Medicine (Baltimore); 2023 Feb; 102(8):e33011. PubMed ID: 36827034
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. Reconstruction of cranioplasty using medpor porouspolyethylene implant.
Marlier B; Kleiber JC; Bannwarth M; Theret E; Eap C; Litre CF
Neurochirurgie; 2017 Dec; 63(6):468-472. PubMed ID: 29122305
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. Use of "custom made" porous hydroxyapatite implants for cranioplasty: postoperative analysis of complications in 1549 patients.
Stefini R; Esposito G; Zanotti B; Iaccarino C; Fontanella MM; Servadei F
Surg Neurol Int; 2013; 4():12. PubMed ID: 23493459
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. Comparison between the different types of heterologous materials used in cranioplasty: a systematic review of the literature.
Morselli C; Zaed I; Tropeano MP; Cataletti G; Iaccarino C; Rossini Z; Servadei F
J Neurosurg Sci; 2019 Dec; 63(6):723-736. PubMed ID: 31599560
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. Cranioplasty after decompressive hemicraniectomy: underestimated surgery-associated complications?
Wachter D; Reineke K; Behm T; Rohde V
Clin Neurol Neurosurg; 2013 Aug; 115(8):1293-7. PubMed ID: 23273384
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. Timing of cranioplasty: a 10.75-year single-center analysis of 754 patients.
Morton RP; Abecassis IJ; Hanson JF; Barber JK; Chen M; Kelly CM; Nerva JD; Emerson SN; Ene CI; Levitt MR; Chowdhary MM; Ko AL; Chesnut RM
J Neurosurg; 2018 Jun; 128(6):1648-1652. PubMed ID: 28799868
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. Warfare-related craniectomy defect reconstruction: early success using custom alloplast implants.
Kumar AR; Bradley JP; Harshbarger R; Stevens F; Bell R; Moores L; Armonda R
Plast Reconstr Surg; 2011 Mar; 127(3):1279-1287. PubMed ID: 21364428
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. Long-Term Complications of Cranioplasty Using Stored Autologous Bone Graft, Three-Dimensional Polymethyl Methacrylate, or Titanium Mesh After Decompressive Craniectomy: A Single-Center Experience After 596 Procedures.
Yeap MC; Tu PH; Liu ZH; Hsieh PC; Liu YT; Lee CY; Lai HY; Chen CT; Huang YC; Wei KC; Wu CT; Chen CC
World Neurosurg; 2019 Aug; 128():e841-e850. PubMed ID: 31082551
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy in hemorrhagic moyamoya disease.
Ge P; Zhang Q; Ye X; Liu X; Deng X; Wang J; Wang R; Zhang Y; Zhang D; Zhao J
J Clin Neurosci; 2019 Dec; 70():234-237. PubMed ID: 31439481
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. Post-Cranioplasty Complications: Lessons From a Prospective Study Assessing Risk Factors.
Tsianaka E; Drosos E; Singh A; Tasiou A; Gatos C; Fountas K
J Craniofac Surg; 2021 Mar-Apr 01; 32(2):530-534. PubMed ID: 33704976
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
