Reading as
Plain-language core. Switch lenses to reveal technical or purchasing detail.
All topics
  1. What it is
  2. Why it matters
  3. Timing
  4. The procedure
  5. Patient journey
  6. Recovery supplies
  7. Implant materials
  8. Side-by-side
  9. US manufacturers
  10. What the evidence says
  11. Value analysis
  12. Questions to ask
  13. Glossary
  14. Resources
  15. References

Sources

References

Sources 1 to 23 are peer-reviewed articles retrieved from PubMed, each linked to its DOI. Sources 24 to 27 are hospital patient-education pages. Manufacturer sources are linked on each manufacturer card.

  1. Halani SH, et al. Effects of cranioplasty on cerebral blood flow following decompressive craniectomy: a systematic review. Neurosurgery. 2017;81(2):204-216. doi:10.1093/neuros/nyx054
  2. Mustroph CM, et al. Systematic review of syndrome of the trephined and reconstructive implications. J Craniofac Surg. 2022;33(6):e647-e652. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000008724
  3. Palavani LB, et al. Timing matters: a comprehensive meta-analysis on the optimal period for cranioplasty after severe TBI. Oper Neurosurg. 2025;29(1):1-18. doi:10.1227/ons.0000000000001404
  4. Gerstl JVE, et al. Complications and cosmetic outcomes of materials used in cranioplasty following decompressive craniectomy: systematic review, pairwise and network meta-analysis. Acta Neurochir. 2022;164(12):3075-3090. doi:10.1007/s00701-022-05251-5
  5. Liu L, et al. Comparison of complications in cranioplasty with various materials: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Neurosurg. 2020;34(4):388-396. doi:10.1080/02688697.2020.1742291
  6. Henry J, et al. Complications of cranioplasty in relation to material: systematic review, network meta-analysis and meta-regression. Neurosurgery. 2021;89(3):383-394. doi:10.1093/neuros/nyab180
  7. Oberoi MK, et al. Complications and failures of autologous heterotopic cranial bone versus alloplastic cranioplasties. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2024;154(4):757e-772e. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000011093
  8. Fan MC, et al. Cryopreservation of autologous cranial bone flaps for cranioplasty: a large sample retrospective study. World Neurosurg. 2018;109:e853-e859. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2017.10.112
  9. Mirabet V, et al. Cranioplasty with autologous bone flaps cryopreserved with dimethylsulphoxide: does tissue processing matter. World Neurosurg. 2021;149:e582-e591. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2021.01.131
  10. Henry J, et al. Complications of cranioplasty following decompressive craniectomy for traumatic brain injury: systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Neurochir. 2021;163(5):1423-1435. doi:10.1007/s00701-021-04809-z
  11. Khalid SI, et al. Materials used in cranial reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World Neurosurg. 2022;164:e945-e963. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2022.05.073
  12. Leão RS, et al. Complications with PMMA compared with other materials used in cranioplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Braz Oral Res. 2018;32:e31. doi:10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0031
  13. Samandar AF, et al. Complications of alloplastic graft materials used in cranioplasty: systematic review and network meta-analysis. Med Sci Monit. 2026;32:e950551. doi:10.12659/MSM.950551
  14. Zhu S, et al. Complications following titanium cranioplasty compared with nontitanium implants cranioplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Neurosci. 2021;84:66-74. doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2020.12.009
  15. Di Cosmo L, et al. Meta-analyses of the surgical outcomes using personalized 3D-printed titanium and PEEK vs. standard implants in cranial reconstruction. Neurosurg Rev. 2025;48(1):312. doi:10.1007/s10143-025-03470-9
  16. Punchak M, et al. Outcomes following polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cranioplasty: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Neurosci. 2017;41:30-35. doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2017.03.028
  17. Yoon HG, et al. Efficacy of 3D-printed titanium mesh-type patient-specific implant for cranioplasty. Korean J Neurotrauma. 2021;17(2):91-99. doi:10.13004/kjnt.2021.17.e25
  18. Staffa G, et al. Custom made bioceramic implants in complex and large cranial reconstruction: a two-year follow-up. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2012;40(3):e65-70. doi:10.1016/j.jcms.2011.04.014
  19. Ganau M, et al. Surgical preference regarding different materials for custom-made allograft cranioplasty: results from an internal audit covering the last 20 years. J Clin Neurosci. 2020;74:98-103. doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2020.01.087
  20. Perozzo FAG, et al. High-density porous polyethylene implant cranioplasty: a systematic review of outcomes. J Craniofac Surg. 2024;35(4):1074-1079. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000010135
  21. Capitelli-McMahon H, et al. Titanium versus autologous bone-based cranioplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cureus. 2023;15(5):e39516. doi:10.7759/cureus.39516
  22. Ashraf M, et al. Early experience with patient-specific low-cost 3D-printed PMMA cranioplasty implants in a lower-middle-income country. Surg Neurol Int. 2022;13:270. doi:10.25259/SNI_250_2022
  23. Dash C, et al. A novel prefabricated patient-specific titanium cranioplasty: reconsideration from a traditional approach. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2022;26(2):223-228. doi:10.1007/s10006-021-00977-5
  24. Cleveland Clinic. Cranioplasty: what it is, procedure, recovery and risks. my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/24924-cranioplasty
  25. Johns Hopkins Medicine. Cranioplasty. hopkinsmedicine.org/health/treatment-tests-and-therapies/cranioplasty
  26. Cleveland Clinic. Craniectomy: what it is, procedure, recovery and risks. my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/24901-craniectomy
  27. Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust. Following your craniectomy: wearing a protective helmet (patient leaflet). doclibrary-rcht.cornwall.nhs.uk/GET/d10338475