Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34076725›Full record

ReviewEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2022

Auricular reconstruction: where are we now? A critical literature review.

Sarah Humphries, Anil Joshi, William Richard Webb, Rahul Kanegaonkar

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Psychosocial and Health-Related Experiences of Individuals With Microtia and Craniofacial Microsomia and Their Families: Narrative Review Over 2 Decades.The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association · 2023
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Sarah HumphriesInstitute of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Canterbury Christchurch University, Chatham Maritime, Kent, UK. sarahhumphries@doctors.org.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0667-6816
Anil JoshiFacial Plastics, University Hospital Lewisham, Lewisham, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3773-1080
William Richard WebbInstitute of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Canterbury Christchurch University, Chatham Maritime, Kent, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2701-626X
Rahul KanegaonkarInstitute of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Canterbury Christchurch University, Chatham Maritime, Kent, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeDeformities of the external ear can affect psychosocial well-being and hearing. Current gold-standard reconstructive treatment is autologous costal cartilage grafting despite the vast morbidity profile. Tissue engineering using stem cells and 3D printing can create patient-specific reconstructed auricles with superior cosmetic outcomes and reduced morbidity. This review critically analyses recent and breakthrough research in the field of regenerative medicine for the pinna, considering gaps in current literature and suggesting further steps to identify whether this could be the new gold-standard.

methodsA literature review was conducted. PubMed (MEDLINE) and Cochrane databases were searched using key terms regenerative medicine, tissue engineering, 3D printing, biofabrication, auricular reconstruction, auricular cartilage, chondrocyte, outer ear and pinna. Studies in which tissue-engineered auricles were implanted into animal or human subjects were included. Exclusion criteria included articles not in English and not published within the last ten years. Titles, abstracts and full texts were screened. Reference searching was conducted and significant breakthrough studies included.

results8 studies, 6 animal and 2 human, were selected for inclusion. Strengths and weaknesses of each are discussed. Common limitations include a lack of human studies, small sample sizes and short follow-up times.

conclusionRegenerative medicine holds significant potential to improve auricular reconstruction. To date there are no large multi-centred human studies in which tissue-engineered auricles have been implanted. However, recent human studies suggest promising results, raising the ever-growing possibility that tissue engineering is the future of auricular reconstruction. We aim to continue developing knowledge in this field.

Indexed as

Ear AuriclePlastic Surgery ProceduresAnimalsEar CartilageEar, ExternalHumansProstheses and ImplantsTissue EngineeringAuricular reconstructionEar deformitiesRegenerative medicineTissue engineering

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.