Table 1: Surgeon responses regarding the use of Cerafix® Dura Substitute.
| Survey Item | Count |
| Traditional Product(s)a | |
| DuraMatrix® | 4 |
| DuraGen® | 3 |
| AlloDerm™ | 3 |
| Bovine pericardium | 2 |
| Cerafix® Handling vs. Traditional Product(s)a | |
| Easier | 5 |
| Same | 2 |
| Harder | 0 |
| Cerafix® Benefitsa | |
| Non-biologic | 5 |
| Tensile strength | 4 |
| Fully resorbable | 1 |
| Non-sided | 1 |
| Preparation time | 1 |
| Suitable Procedures/Locations for Cerafix®a | |
| Supratentorial | 5 |
| Skull base/Endoscopic | 3 |
| Infratentorial/Posterior fossa | 3 |
| Spinal | 3 |
| Any dural defect | 2 |
| Will you use Cerafix® for future cases?b | |
| Yes | 5 |
| No | 0 |
| Could Cerafix® replace your current product(s)?b | |
| Yes | 5 |
| No | 0 |
aMultiple answers were acceptable for this question; bOnly one answer was acceptable for this question.