ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2026
A Ten-Year Retrospective Cohort Study on Auricular Reconstruction: Comparative Analysis of Three Surgical Techniques.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionMicrotia significantly impacts patients' quality of life due to physical, financial, and psychological burdens. Auricular reconstruction, the main treatment for microtia, is considered a significant challenge, given its high demand, complex nature, and need for meticulous precision. This study conducted a retrospective analysis of three widely used techniques for auricular reconstruction within our clinical practice over a 10-year period, providing substantial comparative insights and experiences into the customization of auricular reconstruction.
methodsFrom January 2015 to January 2025, our center performed auricular reconstruction on 1677 microtia patients. Of these, 1582 completed follow-up and joined the study. In the patient cohort, 402 received the modified two-step method, 462 had the expanded two-flap technique, and 718 underwent the single-expanded flap procedure. The cumulative operative time, total length of postoperative hospital stays, duration of therapy, and incidence of postoperative complications across all surgical stages within three distinct groups were analyzed. Additionally, patients' satisfaction with surgical outcomes was assessed.
resultsThe patients were followed up for between 6 months and 10 years. The single-expanded flap technique achieved the highest satisfaction score. The modified two-step method group demonstrated the shortest cumulative operative time, and duration of therapy. The benefits, limitations, and distinct attributes of each method's application were subsequently examined and synthesized.
conclusionsAuricles reconstructed using the single-expanded flap technique exhibit minimal scarring, uniform color, and greater patient satisfaction. However, no single approach can be universally suitable for every patient. Thorough preoperative assessments and careful selection of indications ultimately yield positive outcomes in auricle reconstruction procedures. 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
42711478What 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.