English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Open

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Insights

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

This is an excellent article discussing the advantages of split calvarial bone graft for the reconstruction of skull defects. It is a good review for the readers, as they get to read about this technique in comparison with other materials used for cranioplasty. Indeed, with the vast number of new options and materials introduced in the ‘market’,[1,2] many surgeons need to review the advantages of the ‘natural’ options, and keep in mind that the synthetic substitutions (bone or / and dura) must be used only as a last resort, and only when autologous materials are not sufficiently available.[3] This has been properly clarified in this article. With the development of reconstruction techniques and numerous researches in the field of craniofacial reconstruction, the final results and conclusions are again indicating — the natural biological option.[3] I believe that this statement must be the focus in the education of undergraduate surgeons or young postgraduate craniofacial surgeons, who are almost always under the risk of confusion from a wide variety of newly introduced synthetic materials in the market, accompanied with bright advertisements, which can be misleading in cases where the knowledge of the subject is insufficient. Bashar Abuzayed Department of Neurosurgery, Cerrahpasa Medical Faculty, Istanbul University; Istanbul, Turkey E-mail: sylvius@live.com

Comment on article ′split calvarial bone graft for the reconstruction of skull defects′