Cited by 4Reconstructive Facial Surgery TechniquesNonmelanoma Skin Cancer StudiesEar and Head Tumors

Repair of auricular defects following Mohs micrographic surgery or excision: a systematic review of the literature

Shahwan, Kathryn T., Amon, Gabriel J., Archibald, Laura K., Bakker, Caitlin, Mattox, Adam R., Alam, Murad, Maher, Ian A.·2022·Archives of Dermatological Research

Abstract

Repair of auricular defects following tumor removal can be challenging. Many techniques have been described, but the literature lacks a comprehensive review of these methods. To perform a systematic review to compile and describe methods of reconstruction for post-surgical defects on the ears, eight databases were searched using terms related to ear anatomy, Mohs and excisions, and repair methods. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they contained repair data for ear defects following Mohs or excision for at least 4 subjects and were published in English between 2004 and 2019. Two reviewers screened all abstracts, and then evaluated the remaining full text articles to determine eligibility. The authors' specialties, study design, subject information, tumor and defect characteristics, procedure, repair methods, outcomes, and complications were then extracted. Most articles were written by dermatologic surgeons (66.7%). Repair methods included wedge excisions (19 cases), second intention healing (376), linear closures (294), purse strings (4), locoregional flaps (221), and grafts (2003). Most studies were small observational case series or cohort studies that lacked clear outcome measures. The available evidence on this topic is low quality. Further research utilizing improved study designs and standardized outcome measures is needed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00403-022-02373-9

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Defects to the concavity of the ear are often excellent candidates to heal by secondary intention.

    “Additionally, defects to the concavity of the ear are often excellent candidates to heal by secondary intention.[15][16][17][18][19][20]”

    From Ear Reconstruction following Mohs Micrographic Surgery (2024) · cites this paper as [16]

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 24 · Cited by 4

Authors
Shahwan, K. T., Amon, G. J., Archibald, L. K., Bakker, C., Mattox, A. R., Alam, M., & Maher, I. A.
Affiliations
  • University of North Dakota (US)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
Corresponding author
Shahwan, Kathryn T.
Venue
Archives of Dermatological Research
Published
2022-08-11
Volume
315
Issue
3
Pages
443-446
ISSN
  • 0003-9187 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-069X
OpenAlex
W4291020600
Cited by
4
References
24
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1
FWCI
0.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Dermatological Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Reconstructive Facial Surgery Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Ear and Head Tumors
Keywords
auricular defects, ear reconstruction, Mohs micrographic surgery, surgical excision, skin cancer, locoregional flaps, skin grafts, secondary intention healing, wedge resection, linear closure, purse-string closure, postoperative complications
MeSH terms
Ear, Humans, Skin Neoplasms, Surgical Flaps, Mohs Surgery, Skin Transplantation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review