ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2021
Clinical effect evaluation and complication analysis of different auricle reconstruction of congenital microtia.
Article in American journal of translational research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Innovative tissue engineering strategies for auricular regeneration in microtia: Current advances and future perspectives.Regenerative therapy · 2025Review
- Auricle reconstruction with autologous costal cartilage versus polyethylene implants in microtia patients: a meta-analysis.Archives of craniofacial surgery · 2024Article
- The utilization of three-dimensional imaging and three-dimensional-printed model in autologous microtia reconstruction.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study compared the clinical efficacy and complications of autogenous rib cartilage stent and Medpor stent auricle reconstruction in patients with congenital microtia. A total of 300 patients with congenital microtia were selected as the research objects. 150 patients in the auricle reconstruction group with autologous rib cartilage stent and 150 patients in the auricle reconstruction group with Medpor stent were selected. Postoperative follow-up was conducted to observe whether the shape, color, size, and position of the reconstructed auricle were good, and to compare whether the cranial auricle Angle was consistent with the healthy lateral auricle, so as to judge whether the reconstructed auricle was successful. The incidence of postoperative complications, such as infection and stent exposure was recorded. The postoperative satisfaction and quality of life scores were compared between the two groups. Two operation methods of the auricle reconstruction effect showed no obvious difference (
Indexed as
Identifiers
35035728PMC8748167W4206878884What 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.