184 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35134672)
1. 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]
2. Comparison of Perioperative and Long-term Outcomes Following PEEK and Autologous Cranioplasty: A Single Institution Experience and Review of the Literature.
Anderson B; Harris P; Mozaffari K; Foster CH; Johnson M; Jaco AA; Rosner MK
World Neurosurg; 2023 Dec; 180():e127-e134. PubMed ID: 37683922
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Outcomes following polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cranioplasty: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Punchak M; Chung LK; Lagman C; Bui TT; Lazareff J; Rezzadeh K; Jarrahy R; Yang I
J Clin Neurosci; 2017 Jul; 41():30-35. PubMed ID: 28377284
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Computer-designed PEEK implants: a peek into the future of cranioplasty?
Ng ZY; Nawaz I
J Craniofac Surg; 2014 Jan; 25(1):e55-8. PubMed ID: 24406603
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. [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]
8. 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]
9. Patient-specific polyetheretherketone implants for repair of craniofacial defects.
Rammos CK; Cayci C; Castro-Garcia JA; Feiz-Erfan I; Lettieri SC
J Craniofac Surg; 2015 May; 26(3):631-3. PubMed ID: 25901667
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Computed-tomography modeled polyether ether ketone (PEEK) implants in revision cranioplasty.
O'Reilly EB; Barnett S; Madden C; Welch B; Mickey B; Rozen S
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg; 2015 Mar; 68(3):329-38. PubMed ID: 25541423
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparison of polyetheretherketone and titanium cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy.
Thien A; King NK; Ang BT; Wang E; Ng I
World Neurosurg; 2015 Feb; 83(2):176-80. PubMed ID: 24909393
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The application of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) implants in cranioplasty.
Zhang J; Tian W; Chen J; Yu J; Zhang J; Chen J
Brain Res Bull; 2019 Nov; 153():143-149. PubMed ID: 31425730
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Surgical and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients With PEEK Versus Titanium Cranioplasty Reconstruction.
Asaad M; Taslakian EN; Banuelos J; Abu-Ghname A; Bite U; Mardini S; Van Gompel JJ; Sharaf B
J Craniofac Surg; 2021 Jan-Feb 01; 32(1):193-197. PubMed ID: 33074970
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. Complex skull defects reconstruction with САD/САМ titanium and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) implants.
Eolchiyan SA
Zh Vopr Neirokhir Im N N Burdenko; 2014; 78(4):3-13. PubMed ID: 25406805
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Exploring complications following cranioplasty after decompressive hemicraniectomy: A retrospective bicenter assessment of autologous, PMMA and CAD implants.
Pfnür A; Tosin D; Petkov M; Sharon O; Mayer B; Wirtz CR; Knoll A; Pala A
Neurosurg Rev; 2024 Jan; 47(1):72. PubMed ID: 38285230
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Outcomes of Cranioplasty Strategies for High-Risk Complex Cranial Defects: A 10-Year Experience.
Soto E; Restrepo RD; Grant JH; Myers RP
Ann Plast Surg; 2022 Jun; 88(5 Suppl 5):S449-S454. PubMed ID: 34670972
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The therapeutic effect of patient-specific implants in cranioplasty.
Zegers T; Ter Laak-Poort M; Koper D; Lethaus B; Kessler P
J Craniomaxillofac Surg; 2017 Jan; 45(1):82-86. PubMed ID: 27916400
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
