ArticleScientific reports2026
The application of the wound protector device "lap-protector" in costal cartilage harvest for auricular reconstruction to improve outcomes.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The study presents experience in using a wound protector device named lap-protector during costal cartilage harvest in auricular reconstruction in order to improve outcomes, particularly final scar quality and length. The present study retrospectively comprised fifty-five patients who underwent costal cartilage harvesting for auricular reconstruction were admitted between June to August 2022. The author divided the patients into 2 groups according to whether the lap-protector was used or not: group 1 underwent costal cartilage with the minimal invasive conventional technique by using the lap-protector, while group 2 underwent the same procedure without. Patients were followed-up for a 6-months period. The time of surgery, the amount of blood loss during surgery, postoperative pain, donor-site scar quality and length were recorded and measured for both groups. Twenty-five patients with lap-protector were compared to thirty without. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the demographic of patient characteristics (P > 0.05). The score of pain dropped steadily over the 5 days in both groups, and patients in group 1 reported a lower level of pain in the following days compared with group 2 (P < 0.05), except the fifth day. In those without, the length of the scar on average was 5.43 ± 0.44 cm, which was longer than the average 3.61 ± 0.29 cm in group 1 (P < 0.05). Analysis of VSS results showed a better formation of the scar in the group1 (P < 0.05). The differences in postoperative pain, scar length and quality between the two groups were statistically significant(P < 0.05). There were no differences between the two groups in terms of the operation time and the amount of bleeding during the operation (P > 0.05). The application of lap-protector in costal cartilage harvest can optimize the scar formation and reduce postoperative pain without prolonging the operative time, which is a convenient and effective technique for achieving satisfactory results.
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.