ReviewCureus2024
Exploring Aesthetic Outcomes and Complications in Auricular Reconstruction Utilising Autologous Cartilage: A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Auricular reconstruction remains a challenging procedure, requiring a high degree of manual dexterity and attention to detail in order to reconstruct the complex three-dimensional geometry of the ear successfully. Most techniques will rely on autologous cartilage for auricular framework fabrication, carrying a risk of donor and recipient site morbidity. The aim of this report is to investigate the complications and aesthetic outcomes associated with autologous cartilage harvest in auricular reconstruction. A systematic review protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting for Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Comprehensive electronic search strategies for four databases were developed. Studies were screened according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria by two independent reviewers. The literature search identified 7171 articles. Filtering for relevance and duplication reduced the number of articles to 52. A total of 12,215 patients underwent auricular reconstruction utilising autologous cartilage. Indications included 11,696 patients due to microtia, 334 patients due to burns or trauma, 70 patients due to constricted ears, and 115 patients due to prominent ears. The most commonly reported donor site complications included chest wall deformities (n = 159). The most commonly reported recipient site complications included hypertrophic or keloid scars (n = 279), haematoma (n = 155), tissue expander exposure (n = 111), cartilage or framework exposure (n = 122), and cartilage framework deformation or resorption (n = 50). Although a challenging procedure, auricular reconstruction utilising autologous cartilage is possible. Exceptional aesthetic results can be achieved when performed by a skilled surgeon on appropriately selected individuals. However, the potential risks and complications associated with the procedure should be discussed with the patient and family beforehand.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.