ArticleArchives of craniofacial surgery2024
Auricle reconstruction with autologous costal cartilage versus polyethylene implants in microtia patients: a meta-analysis.
Article in Archives of craniofacial surgery, 2024. 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.
- Vacuum-Assisted Closure Device as a Suction Tool in First Stage Autologous Auricular Reconstruction.Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery · 2026Article
- Innovative tissue engineering strategies for auricular regeneration in microtia: Current advances and future perspectives.Regenerative therapy · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAuricle reconstruction is among the most challenging procedures in plastic and reconstructive surgery, and the choice of framework material is a critical decision for both surgeons and patients. This meta-analysis compared the outcomes of autologous auricle reconstruction using costal cartilage with those of alloplastic reconstruction using porous polyethylene implants.
methodsA literature review was conducted using the PubMed and Embase databases to retrieve articles published between January 2000 and June 2024. The outcomes analyzed included postoperative complications such as framework exposure, infection, skin necrosis, hematoma, and hypertrophic scars, as well as patient satisfaction. The proportions of reconstructive outcomes from each selected study were statistically analyzed using the "metaprop" function in R software.
resultsFourteen articles met our inclusion criteria. The group undergoing polyethylene implant reconstruction exhibited higher rates of framework exposure, infection, and skin necrosis, whereas the autologous reconstruction group experienced higher rates of hematoma and hypertrophic scars. Of all the complications, framework exposure was the only one to show a statistically significant difference between the two groups (p < 0.0001). In terms of patient satisfaction, those who underwent autologous cartilage reconstruction reported a higher rate of satisfaction, although this difference did not reach statistical significance in the meta-analysis (p = 0.076).
conclusionThere is no statistically significant difference in postoperative complications such as infection, hematoma, skin necrosis, and hypertrophic scars between auricle reconstructions using autologous costal cartilage and those using polyethylene implants. However, reconstructions with polyethylene implants show a significantly higher rate of framework exposure.
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.