CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 86Reconstructive Facial Surgery TechniquesCongenital Ear and Nasal AnomaliesNasal Surgery and Airway Studies

Aesthetic microtia reconstruction with Medpor

Romo, Thomas, Reitzen, Shari·2008·Facial Plastic Surgery
DOI 10.1055/s-2008-1037453
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The complex architecture of the auricle makes it one of the most challenging structures for the reconstructive surgeon to re-create. Overlying the ear's unique cartilage framework are layers of varied soft tissues forming a three-dimensional organ, which is distinctively positioned on the head. Arguably, the most challenging auricle to reconstruct is third-degree microtia due to a near-total absence of native tissue and a need for lifelong durability of the reconstruction. Many methods of reconstruction have been studied; autogenous costal cartilage reconstruction has been one of the more traditional methods, with favorable long-term results reported by several surgeons. However, this technique requires tremendous artistic and technical skill on the part of the surgeon-sculptor to construct a realistic-appearing ear. High-density porous polyethylene (Medpor) is a stable, alloplastic implant that can integrate with host tissues, is resistant to infection, and has been successfully applied to reconstruction of the head and neck. For auricular reconstruction, Medpor--enveloped in a temporoparietal fascial flap with full-thickness skin graft coverage--is a durable and aesthetically gratifying alternative in microtic patients. This alternative surgical technique reduces surgical time and morbidity, standardizes results among surgeons, and facilitates an aesthetic, natural-appearing reconstruction of the auricle.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1055/s-2008-1037453

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • The advantage of using Medpor implants is that it provides a simpler approach for auricular reconstruction in comparison to an autologous method.

    “The advantage of using Medpor implants is that it provides a simpler approach for auricular reconstruction in comparison to an autologous method.41”

    From Ear Reconstruction following Mohs Micrographic Surgery (2024) · cites this paper as [41]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Romo, T., & Reitzen, S.
Affiliations
  • Lenox Hill Hospital (US)
  • NYU Langone Health (US)
Venue
Facial Plastic Surgery
Publisher
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Published
2008-02
Volume
24
Issue
1
Pages
120-128
ISSN
  • 0736-6825 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-8793
DOI
10.1055/s-2008-1037453
OpenAlex
W1980711764
Cited by
86
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 4
FWCI
4.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Facial Plastic Surgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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, Medpor, alloplastic implants, temporoparietal fascial flap, full-thickness skin graft
MeSH terms
Biocompatible Materials, Ear, External, Esthetics, Fascia, Humans, Patient Care Planning, Polyethylenes, Postoperative Care, Postoperative Complications, Prosthesis Design, Skin Transplantation, Plastic Surgery Procedures, Prostheses and Implants, Prosthesis Implantation

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