ArticleThe Laryngoscope2024
Early Postoperative Complications in Microtia Reconstruction: An Analysis of the NSQIP-P Database.
Article in The Laryngoscope, 2024. 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.
- Systematic Review on Microtia: Current Knowledge and Future Directions.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Article
- Analyzing Discrepancies and Correlations in Soft and Hard Tissue Asymmetry: A Focused Study on Hemifacial Microsomia and Isolated Microtia.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2025Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesMicrotia and anotia repair require techniques that consider both aesthetics and function. The outcomes of different reconstructive frameworks such as costal cartilage or a porous polyethylene implant have not been evaluated on a national scale. We aim to understand differences in outcomes/complication rates and operative times between different reconstructive frameworks used in microtia/anotia reconstruction.
methodsThis was a retrospective review of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Pediatric database between 2012-2019. Patients with ICD-9/10 codes for microtia/anotia were isolated. Reconstruction methods were identified using CPT codes for rib graft, ear cartilage graft, and alloplastic implants (biocompatible implants, porous polyethylene, etc). Outcomes included operative-time, wound complications, and unplanned re-operations within 30 days of surgery. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to control for confounders.
resultsWe included 593 patients for analysis. Reconstruction with rib grafts (N = 506, 85%) was the most common. In 58 patients (9.8%), an implant was used for the auricular framework, whereas in 47 (7.9%) ear cartilage grafts were used. The overall wound complication rate was 3.4%. On univariate analysis, alloplastic implants exhibited a higher rate of wound complications (8.6% vs. 2.8%, p = 0.037) and longer operative times (350 min vs. 235 min, p < 0.001). After controlling for demographics and comorbidities, implants conferred an independently increased risk of wound complications (OR 3.52, 1.10-9.54, p = 0.020).
conclusionAlthough the use of alloplastic implants (e.g., porous polyethylene) may confer an increased risk of early complications, the long-term clinical implications of these findings are unclear relative to aesthetic benefits. Multi-institutional studies are needed to validate these findings using patient-specific and surgeon-specific data. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 134:1214-1219, 2024.
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.