250 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31461029)
21. Analyses of the factors influencing bone graft infection after delayed cranioplasty.
Matsuno A; Tanaka H; Iwamuro H; Takanashi S; Miyawaki S; Nakashima M; Nakaguchi H; Nagashima T
Acta Neurochir (Wien); 2006 May; 148(5):535-40; discussion 540. PubMed ID: 16467959
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. A Large Multicenter Retrospective Research on Embedded Cranioplasty and Covered Cranioplasty.
Zhang Q; Yuan Y; Li X; Sun T; Zhou Y; Yu H; Guan J
World Neurosurg; 2018 Apr; 112():e645-e651. PubMed ID: 29374612
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Cranioplasty after craniectomy in pediatric patients-a systematic review.
Klieverik VM; Miller KJ; Singhal A; Han KS; Woerdeman PA
Childs Nerv Syst; 2019 Sep; 35(9):1481-1490. PubMed ID: 30610476
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. 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]
25. Comparison of complications in cranioplasty with various materials: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Liu L; Lu ST; Liu AH; Hou WB; Cao WR; Zhou C; Yin YX; Yuan KS; Liu HJ; Zhang MG; Zhang HJ
Br J Neurosurg; 2020 Aug; 34(4):388-396. PubMed ID: 32233810
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
26. Allergic Epidural Effusion Following Polyetheretherketone Cranioplasty.
Qiu S; You W; Wang H; Zhou X; Yang X
J Craniofac Surg; 2019; 30(3):e241-e243. PubMed ID: 30730518
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. A randomised controlled trial comparing autologous cranioplasty with custom-made titanium cranioplasty: long-term follow-up.
Honeybul S; Morrison DA; Ho KM; Lind CRP; Geelhoed E
Acta Neurochir (Wien); 2018 May; 160(5):885-891. PubMed ID: 29546554
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Customized polyetheretherketone (PEEK) implants are associated with similar hospital length of stay compared to autologous bone used in cranioplasty procedures.
Mozaffari K; Rana S; Chow A; Mahgerefteh N; Duong C; Sheppard JP; Phillips HW; Jarrahy R; Yang I
J Neurol Sci; 2022 Mar; 434():120169. PubMed ID: 35134672
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Evaluation of titanium mesh cranioplasty and polyetheretherketone cranioplasty: protocol for a multicentre, assessor-blinded, randomised controlled trial.
Yang J; Sun T; Yuan Y; Li X; Yu H; Guan J
BMJ Open; 2019 Dec; 9(12):e033997. PubMed ID: 31796495
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Polyetheretherketone implants for the repair of large cranial defects: a 3-center experience.
Rosenthal G; Ng I; Moscovici S; Lee KK; Lay T; Martin C; Manley GT
Neurosurgery; 2014 Nov; 75(5):523-9; discussion 528-9. PubMed ID: 24979096
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Custom porous polyethylene implants for large-scale pediatric skull reconstruction: early outcomes.
Lin AY; Kinsella CR; Rottgers SA; Smith DM; Grunwaldt LJ; Cooper GM; Losee JE
J Craniofac Surg; 2012 Jan; 23(1):67-70. PubMed ID: 22337376
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Long-term results following titanium cranioplasty of large skull defects.
Cabraja M; Klein M; Lehmann TN
Neurosurg Focus; 2009 Jun; 26(6):E10. PubMed ID: 19485714
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. How "successful" is calvarial reconstruction using frozen autologous bone?
Honeybul S; Ho KM
Plast Reconstr Surg; 2012 Nov; 130(5):1110-1117. PubMed ID: 23096611
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Analyzing the Cost of Autogenous Cranioplasty Versus Custom-Made Patient-Specific Alloplastic Cranioplasty.
Mrad MA; Murrad K; Antonyshyn O
J Craniofac Surg; 2017 Jul; 28(5):1260-1263. PubMed ID: 28582300
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Reconstruction of cranioplasty using the thoracodorsal artery perforator (TDAP) flap: A case series.
Scaglioni MF; Giunta G
Microsurgery; 2019 Mar; 39(3):207-214. PubMed ID: 29969161
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. The Comparison of Autologous Bone, Methyl-Methacrylate, Porous Polyethylene, and Titanium Mesh in Cranioplasty.
Celik H; Kurtulus A; Yildirim ME; Tekiner A; Erdem Y; Kantarci K; Kul H; Bayar MA
Turk Neurosurg; 2022; 32(5):841-844. PubMed ID: 35652181
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Outcome in patient-specific PEEK cranioplasty: A two-center cohort study of 40 implants.
Jonkergouw J; van de Vijfeijken SE; Nout E; Theys T; Van de Casteele E; Folkersma H; Depauw PR; Becking AG
J Craniomaxillofac Surg; 2016 Sep; 44(9):1266-72. PubMed ID: 27524384
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Preliminary Results of a Prospective Study on Methods of Cranial Reconstruction.
Iaccarino C; Viaroli E; Fricia M; Serchi E; Poli T; Servadei F
J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2015 Dec; 73(12):2375-8. PubMed ID: 26253012
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. A comparison and cost analysis of cranioplasty techniques: autologous bone versus custom computer-generated implants.
Gilardino MS; Karunanayake M; Al-Humsi T; Izadpanah A; Al-Ajmi H; Marcoux J; Atkinson J; Farmer JP
J Craniofac Surg; 2015 Jan; 26(1):113-7. PubMed ID: 25534061
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. [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]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
