ArticleThe Laryngoscope2025
Auricular Perichondritis in the Cartilage Piercing Era.
Article in The Laryngoscope, 2025. 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.
- Auricular Perichondritis in the Cartilage Piercing Era.The Laryngoscope · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo describe the demographics, clinical presentation, treatment, and complications of piercing-induced auricular perichondritis (P-IAP) and non-PIAP.
methodsWe reviewed the medical records of consecutive patients diagnosed and treated for P-IAP and P-FAP between 2006 and 2021. The retrieved data included demographics, comorbidities, etiology, location, treatment, complications, and outcome, and they were compared between the two groups.
resultsIn total, 217 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Of them, 120 (55.3%) comprised the P-IAP group, which was characterized by significantly younger age and fewer comorbidities. The 97 non-PIAP patients tended to present with more systemic and regional signs, while the PIAP group presented with localized signs and significantly more abscess formation and significantly more colonization with Pseudomonas aeruginosa . Time from causative event to symptom onset was significantly shorter in the PIAP group (18.9 ± 38.7 days) compared to the non-PIAP group (29.8 ± 62.9 days, p < 0.021), which also had longer hospitalization. Complications included drainage or debridement, recurrent disease, > 21 days of antibiotic treatment, or requirement of a central line. Abscess formation was the most significant variable associated with complications (OR 35.75 [95% CI: 13.12-97.35, p < 0.001] for the entire cohort, OR 35.59 [95% CI: 10.84-116.84, p < 0.001] for the PIAP group, and OR 47.30 [95% CI: 5.33-419.67, p = 0.001] for the non-PIAP group). No other variables reached a level of significance.
conclusionPIAP has different demographics, comorbidities, disease course, and microbiology compared to non-PIAP. Abscess formation is an independent factor for complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3:
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.