Microvascular ear replantation
Open accessAbstract
Three cases of attempted ear replantation are presented. Successful revascularisation was achieved in all patients. However, in one case venous congestion and necrosis of the ear occurred at 7 days. Thorough initial debridement of skin and cartilage plus systemic heparinisation and haemodilution upon completion of the vascular anastomoses are considered important technical factors. When compared with other forms of reconstruction, ear replantation gives a superior result and is therefore advocated whenever possible.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Venous congestion is the major complication associated with microvascular repair of the auricle.
“Venous congestion is the major complication associated with microvascular repair of the auricle”
From Auricular avulsion injuries and reattachment techniques: A systematic review (2020) · cites this paper as [59]
The Discussion’s Figure 3 caption reports venous congestion after ear replantation that could not be controlled with leeches, and the case ultimately required debridement. The paper does not identify venous congestion as the major complication of microvascular auricular repair; its cases also describe other complications, including skin and cartilage necrosis in Case 2. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredSeveral authors have reported cases where venous congestion led to late failure of reattachment and complete loss of the replanted segment.
“several authors have reported cases where venous congestion led to late failure of reattachment and complete loss of the replanted segment.58, 59, 60, 61, 62”
From Auricular avulsion injuries and reattachment techniques: A systematic review (2020) · cites this paper as [59]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Microsurgical Reattachment of Totally Amputated Ears
Mutimer, K. L., Banis, J. C., Upton, J., & Upton, J. (1987) · Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery · doi:10.1097/00006534-198704000-00003 · Cited by 118 · see citing works
Successful Replantation of a Completely Avulsed Ear by Microvascular Anastomosis
Pennington, D. G., Lai, M. F., Pelly, A. D., & Pennington, D. G. (1980) · Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery · doi:10.1097/00006534-198006000-00017 · Cited by 116 · see citing works
Harashina, T., & Irigaray, A. (1980) · Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery · doi:10.1097/00006534-198004000-00019 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Juri, J., Irigaray, A., Carlos Juri, C., et al. (1987) · Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery · doi:10.1097/00006534-198709000-00016 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Comparison of Ear Reattachment Methods: A Review of 25 Years since Pennington
Steffen, A., Katzbach, R., & Klaiber, S. (2006) · Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery · doi:10.1097/01.prs.0000239539.98956.b0 · Cited by 91 · see citing works
Kind, G. M., Buncke, G. M., Placik, O. J., Jansen, D. A., DʼAmore, T., & Buncke, H. J. (1997) · Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery · doi:10.1097/00006534-199706000-00008 · Cited by 63 · see citing works
Microvascular ear replantation
Kind, G. M. (2002) · Clinics in Plastic Surgery · doi:10.1016/s0094-1298(01)00009-8 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Auricular avulsion injuries and reattachment techniques: A systematic review
Gailey, A. D., Farquhar, D., Clark, J. M., & Shockley, W. W. (2020) · Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology · doi:10.1002/lio2.372 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
“Katsaros et al partially attributed their failed case to a delay in the start of leech therapy.(59) A full discussion of leech therapy is beyond the scope of this article.”
BackgroundAky??rek, M., ??afak, T., & Ke??ik, A. (2001) · Annals of Plastic Surgery · doi:10.1097/00000637-200104000-00016 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
- Authors
- Katsaros, J., Tan, E., & Sheen, R.
- Affiliations
- Royal Adelaide Hospital (AU)
- ORCID
- Tan, Eugene
- Venue
- British Journal of Plastic Surgery
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1988-09
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 496-499
- ISSN
- 0007-1226 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2108892078
- Cited by
- 25
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 1.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- British Journal of Plastic Surgery (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Reconstructive Facial Surgery Techniques
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Reconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine
- Keywords
- ear replantation, microvascular surgery, revascularization, venous congestion, ear necrosis, debridement, hemodilution, vascular anastomosis, ear reconstruction
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Ear, External, Female, Humans, Male, Microsurgery, Replantation
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
