CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 38Reconstructive Facial Surgery TechniquesCongenital Ear and Nasal AnomaliesNasal Surgery and Airway Studies

Long term aesthetics, patient-reported outcomes, and auricular sensitivity after microtia reconstruction: a systematic review.

Open access
Ronde, E.M., Esposito, M., Lin, Y., van Etten-Jamaludin, F.S., Bulstrode, N.W., Breugem, C.C.·2021·Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery
DOI 10.1016/j.bjps.2021.08.004
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Auricular reconstruction for microtia is most frequently performed using autologous costal cartilage (ACC) or porous polyethylene (PPE) implants. Short-term results are generally promising, but long-term results remain unclear. Long-term outcomes were explored in this systematic review, and minimal reporting criteria were suggested for future original data studies. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception through October 14, 2020. Articles on auricular reconstruction in patients with microtia using ACC or PPE were included if postsurgical follow-up was at least 1 year. Outcome reporting was split into separate publications, and results on complications were reported previously. This publication focused on long-term aesthetic, patient-reported, and sensitivity outcomes. RESULTS: Forty-one publications reported on these outcomes. Both materials led to aesthetically pleasing results and high rates of patient satisfaction. ACC frameworks grew similarly to contralateral ears, and the anterior surface of auricles regained sensitivity. Furthermore, postoperative health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes were generally good. Data synthesis was limited due to considerable variability between studies and poor study quality. No conclusions could be drawn on the superiority of either method due to the lack of comparative analyses. CONCLUSION: Future studies should minimally report (1) surgical efficacy measured using the tool provided in the UK Care Standards for the Management of Patients with Microtia and Atresia; (2) complications including framework extrusion or exposure, graft loss, framework resorption, wire exposure and scalp/auricular scar complications and (3) HRQoL before and after treatment using the EAR-Q patient-reported outcome measure (PROM).

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.bjps.2021.08.004

Cites

78 of 78 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Review Manager (RevMan) v. 5.4.1 (The Cochrane Collaboration, 2020).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Ronde, E. M., Esposito, M., Lin, Y., van Etten-Jamaludin, F. S., Bulstrode, N. W., & Breugem, C. C.
Affiliations
  • Amsterdam University Medical Centers (NL)
  • Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital (IT)
  • Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College (CN)
  • Great Ormond Street Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Ronde, E.M.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-12
Volume
74
Issue
12
Pages
3213-3234
ISSN
1748-6815 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.bjps.2021.08.004
OpenAlex
W3194356982
Cited by
38
References
78
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 6
FWCI
1.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Plastic Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • INFM-OAR (INFN Catania) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Reconstructive Facial Surgery Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Genetics › Congenital Ear and Nasal Anomalies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Nasal Surgery and Airway Studies
Keywords
microtia, ear reconstruction, costal cartilage graft, porous polyethylene implants, long-term outcomes, patient satisfaction, health-related quality of life, graft loss
MeSH terms
Patient Reported Outcome Measures, Esthetics, Humans, Postoperative Complications, Patient Satisfaction, Plastic Surgery Procedures, Prostheses and Implants, Congenital Microtia, Costal Cartilage

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