ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2022
Surgical Microtia Reconstruction in Hemifacial Microsomia Patients: Current State and Future Directions.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- An Overview of the Currently Used Congenital Auricular Anomalies (CAA) Classifications for Surgical Reconstruction: A Scoping Review.The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association · 2026Article
- Hemifacial Microsomia Surgical Approach and Anotia Reconstruction: A Case Report.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Hemifacial microsomia (HFM) is one of the most common congenital craniofacial disorders. Among many other features, microtia is present in the large majority of these patients. However, mainly due to the unilateral hypoplastic anatomy, microtia reconstruction among this patient population remains a reconstructive challenge for plastic surgeons. Given that no clear standards exist, an evidence-based synthesis of the literature was devised. Methods: A systematic search of Pubmed, Medline, and Embase was carried out, in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Studies discussing surgical microtia reconstruction for HFM patients were retained. Qualitative data regarding study design, challenges addressed, specific recommendations, and their respective strengths/limitations were extracted from each. Retrieved recommendations were consolidated and assigned a level of evidence grade. Results: Although only 11 studies were included in this review, these provided 22 main recommendations regarding the eight HFM-specific challenges identified, which were of either grade C (n = 5) or D (n = 17). Included studies addressed construct location (n = 7), the low hairline (n = 6), soft tissue construct coverage (n = 6), earlobe reconstruction (n = 6), construct projection (n = 5), anomalies of the relevant neurovascular systems (n = 2), retroauricular construct coverage (n = 2), and sizing of the construct (n = 2). Conclusions: Given the many persisting reconstructive challenges regarding surgical microtia reconstruction for HFM patients, the authors present a comprehensive and evidence-based consolidation of recommendations specific to these challenges. The authors hope this systematic review can appropriately guide plastic surgeons and will ultimately improve care for this patient population.
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.