ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2025
Age and Gender Related Variability in the Strength of Auricular Cartilage in Living Humans.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2025. 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.
- Cellularized Thermoformed Scaffolds with Human Septal Chondrocytes Support In Vivo Cartilage Maturation for Auricular Reconstruction.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Non-Surgical Ear Rejuvenation Through Selective Neuromodulation with Onabotulinum and Abobotulinum Toxin-A.Toxins · 2026Article
- Short histological kaleidoscope - recent findings in histology. Part V. About tendons, ligaments, and cartilages.Romanian journal of morphology and embryology = Revue roumaine de morphologie et embryologieReview
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
backgroundDespite previous studies on auricle morphology, research on its biomechanical properties remains limited. This study aims to assess age- and gender-related variations in auricle strength in living humans.
methodsA prospective, clinical study was conducted to assess auricle stiffness at three antihelix points (superior, middle, and inferior) using a digital Newton meter. Measurements were conducted in two modes to assess the force needed to move the auricle medially by 1, 2, 3, and 4 mm, and the peak force required to displace the auricle medially to a distance of 1 mm from the mastoid skin. Morphological measurements were also recorded to assess the auricle dimensions and projections at various levels of the auricle. Data were analyzed to examine age-related and gender-related distributions, as well as to investigate correlations between morphological parameters and resistance measurements.
resultsThe study included 226 ears from 52 women and 61 men, aged 2-85 years. Age significantly influenced most anthropometric measurements, with males generally exhibiting larger ears. Resistance values increased with age, particularly in age groups over 35 and 50. Gender did not significantly affect resistance values. Positive correlations were found between auricle dimensions and resistance values, indicating increased resistance with increased auricle projection.
conclusionsThis study provides a comprehensive mechanical resistance map of the auricle, demonstrating age-related changes in stiffness and regional variations in mechanical properties. These findings are valuable for refining surgical techniques, tissue engineering, and potentially for forensic applications. Further research on diverse populations and standardization of measurement protocols are recommended. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
39557640What 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.