ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2023
Reconstructive Procedures of the Auricular Concha after Cutaneous Oncologic Surgery: A Systematic Review.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
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
Reconstruction of the auricular concha poses a challenge due to its difficult access and limited tissue flexibility; however, there are no recommendations in the literature on which reconstructive technique should be favored for this anatomical site. This systematic review intends to describe and compare the reconstructive techniques used in conchal bowl reconstruction following cutaneous oncologic surgery of this region, with regard to their complications and aesthetic results. In doing so, we aim to identify the best suited reconstructive procedure(s) for the conchal bowl. The six databases searched (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Ovid, SciELO, and CENTRAL) yielded twelve eligible studies that explored the revolving door flap, split-thickness skin grafts (STSG), full-thickness skin grafts (FTSG), second intention healing, the preauricular translocation flap, subcutaneous pedicle grafts, and other local flaps. Qualitative synthesis of the results concluded that the revolving door flap could be the reconstructive procedure of choice for the auricular concha, following skin cancer excision. It has a low risk of necrosis, infection, and postoperative hemorrhage, as well as excellent aesthetic outcomes. STSG may be used as an alternative. Nonetheless, due to the low sample size and the high risk of bias in some studies, further investigations must be conducted on this subject.
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.