ArticleJPRAS open2019
Helical rim advancement - A technique to avoid keloid recurrence.
Article in JPRAS open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHelical rim keloids occur commonly following ear piercings, trauma and previous surgeries and can be disfiguring. Many techniques have been developed to treated these disfiguring lesions with varying successes, however, individuals prone to developing keloids inadvertently recur despite best efforts.
objectiveTo determine whether helical rim advancement flap reconstruction following helical rim keloid excision can reduce recurrences.
designCase series followed up to 2 years.
settingSingle Centre Tertiary Hospital Facial Plastics Service.
participantsAll patients who consented to helical rim advancement reconstruction after keloid excision.
resultsThe authors report a series of 7 patients with helical rim keloids ranging from 1.2 cm to 5 cm in widest diameter treated with keloid excision and reconstruction with helical rim advancement flap technique. There were no recurrences within a mean of about 19 months post-operatively. Most patients report satisfaction with the cosmetic end-result. DISCUSSION: From the authors' experience, helical rim advancement reconstruction following excision of keloids about 2.5 cm in widest diameter is an excellent tension-free option to avoid recurrence of helical rim keloids. Wound tension is a key risk factor for keloid formation. We hypothesise that the reason why there was no recurrence is because in helical rim advancement flap reconstruction, the underlying helical rim takes all the tension of closure off the dermis, resulting in tension-free skin closure.
conclusionHelical rim advancement flap reconstruction is a viable technique to avoid recurrence and minimise cosmetic deformities of the pinna for selected helical rim keloids.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.