ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2019
Comparison of three-dimensional and two-dimensional templates on auricle reconstruction in patients with unilateral microtia.
Article in American journal of translational research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- The utilization of three-dimensional imaging and three-dimensional-printed model in autologous microtia reconstruction.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2024Review
- Objective quantitative methods to evaluate microtia reconstruction: A scoping review.JPRAS open · 2023Article
- Microtia Ear Reconstruction with Patient-Specific 3D Models-A Segmentation Protocol.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Multiscale sterilizable 3D printed auricular templates to guide cartilaginous framework sizing and sculpture during autologous microtia reconstruction.JPRAS open · 2021Article
- Reliability of the Arabic Glasgow children's benefit inventory.Saudi medical journal · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To confirm the advantage of 3D template over the traditional 2D template in auricle reconstruction. Two hundred patients with Marx III unilateral microtia treated in our hospital during the last four years were included in this retrospective study. They were divided into two groups according to the surgery which was assisted by 2D or 3D template. The outcome was evaluated 6 months after the surgery in the following aspects: the mean surgical time, the similarity rate for ear size, nasal-tip to tragus length and auriculocephalic angle, the patient's satisfaction and the quality of life after surgery. The surgical time for the 3D group was 3.2 ± 1.9 hours, significantly shorter than that for the 2D group (4.1 ± 3.7 hours; P < 0.05). The similarity rates between both sides were 91.24 ± 1.71%, 96.46 ± 2.51%, and 88.15 ± 10.20% respectively for ear size, nasal tip-tragus length, and auriculocephalic angle in the 3D group. While the corresponding values in the 2D group were smaller and were 87.47 ± 3.66%, 90.16 ± 3.27%, and 78.25 ± 1.26% respectively. The difference was significant in nasal tip-tragus length and auriculocephalic angle (P < 0.05), but not for ear size (P > 0.05). The patients' satisfaction was better in the 3D group. The averaged GCBI score was 65.6 ± 13.2 in the 3D group, which was significantly higher than the value of 55.3 ± 16.8 in the 2D group (P < 0.05). The use of 3D template resulted in a better outcome in the auricle reconstruction surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31312387PMC6614647W2994780517What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.