ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2025
Postoperative Cutaneous Sensory Recovery After Different Surgical Approaches for Microtia and Ear Reconstruction.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The most common means of ear reconstruction include a cutaneous flap (CF) or a fascial flap with skin graft (FSG). Each approach has advantages and disadvantages; however, sensory outcomes have yet to be compared. This study aimed to compare sensory outcomes between these 2 ear reconstruction approaches. Methods: Pediatric and adult patients with microtia or who underwent ear reconstruction were included. Sensory recovery was assessed using a 5-filament Semmes-Weinstein monofilament test sensory score before reconstruction, when available, and after single- or 2-stage reconstruction. When available, the ear remnant and the contralateral ear were used as controls. Results: Sensory data were collected from 2022 to 2024. Twenty-eight patients (32 reconstructed ears) were analyzed. Eighteen patients (20 ears) underwent autologous single- or 2-stage CF reconstruction using the Nagata technique (or a modification). Ten patients (12 ears) underwent FSG reconstruction with either porous polyethylene or cartilage constructs. Intragroup comparison of CF patients demonstrated clinically comparable sensation between pre- (ear remnant) and postoperative measurements of the reconstructed ear (as well as when compared with the contralateral ear). Intragroup comparison of FSG patients demonstrated significantly reduced sensation postoperatively when compared with the contralateral ear. The least sensitive regions after surgery included the helix/antihelix and conchal bowl. Intergroup comparison between CF and FSG patients revealed significantly improved sensation in the CF group. Conclusions: CF-based reconstruction demonstrates improved sensation over FSG-based reconstruction. These results add to the list of advantages and disadvantages of each approach and should be considered when treating patients with ear differences.
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.