ArticleThe Journal of craniofacial surgery2024
Complications of Cartilage Sparing Otoplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Article in The Journal of craniofacial surgery, 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Otoplasty in the Scientific Literature: Global Productivity, Thematic Evolution, and Forecasted Trajectories.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Otoplasty Surgical Techniques and Clinical Outcomes: A Practical Review.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Review
- A New Guiding Suturing Technique for Reshaping of the Antihelix in Patients with Prominent Ears.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
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo study the prevalence of complications in patients who have undergone cartilage sparing otoplasty.
methodsOn December 26, 2021, the authors searched 8 databases using the search term "(otoplasty) AND (cartilage sparing OR cartilage sparing)" for collecting the most appropriate studies. The authors used R software version 4.1.2 for conducting the meta-analysis.
resultsOf the 414 records screened, the authors included 14 studies. Recurrence/reoperation was the most common reported complication with a prevalence of 4.27% (95% CI: 2.93-6.22), followed by suture erosion 2.46% (95% CI: 0.86-7.07) and hematoma/hemorrhage 1.34% (95% CI: 0.79-2.27). The authors did not find any significant difference between cartilage sparing and cartilage scoring in terms of recurrence/reoperation [odds ratio (OR): 0.92; 95% CI: 0.53-1.60; P = 0.766], hematoma/hemorrhage (OR: 1.39; 95% CI: 0.28-7.01; P = 0.688), and wound infection (OR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.06-2.24; P = 0.279).
conclusionVarious complications have been reported, including recurrence and reoperation, hematoma, wound infections, suture erosions, keloid formation, and skin necrosis. However, the prevalence of these events is not high, although significant heterogeneity was reported for some outcomes. Therefore, it can be concluded that cartilage sparing otoplasty is a safe and reproducible technique.
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.