Cited by 3Reconstructive Facial Surgery TechniquesNasal Surgery and Airway StudiesCongenital Ear and Nasal Anomalies

Does postauricular fascial flap reduce suture complications in otoplasty?

Open access
Albacete Neto, Antonio, Ungarelli, Luís Fernando, Coltro, Pedro Soler, Schwartzmann, Gabriela Lustri, Horácio, Grazielle Souza, Silva, Vinícius Zolezi, Farina, Jayme Adriano·2018·Journal of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery

Abstract

Numerous suture techniques and covering flaps have been described to minimize complications related to sutures in otoplasty. The split postauricular fascial flap is one of such techniques, and it has been used to pad otoplasty suture. The aim of this study was to evaluate complications related to nonabsorbable cartilage sutures in otoplasty, using a variation of the split postauricular fascial flap. In this retrospective case series, we analyzed otoplasty patients in whom simplified split postauricular fascial flap was utilized. A postauricular skin ellipse was de-epithelialized (preserving dermis) and a longitudinally split in half. Flaps were dissected, and they were positioned on the cartilage to promote additional soft tissue coverage to the sutures. The lateral flap covered conchoscaphal sutures while the medial flap covered the conchomastoid sutures. Both the flaps were not sutured to cartilage. Early and late postoperative complications were evaluated. A total of 142 patients were included. Twenty-four (16.9%) patients developed late complications: 13 (9.1%) patients had palpable and visible sutures, nine (6.3%) had suture extrusion and two (1.4%) had hypertrophic scars. In this case series, the simplified split postauricular flap did not prevent or reduce late complications related to suture extrusion in otoplasty. It is possible that suturing the entire length of the flaps may play a role in our results. So, anchoring the flap and possibly tightening it a little may be an important technical step to prevent extrusion of sutures whenever the postauricular flap is used.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/2000656x.2018.1444618

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Albacete Neto, A., Ungarelli, L. F., Coltro, P. S., Schwartzmann, G. L., Horácio, G. S., Silva, V. Z., & Farina, J. A.
Affiliations
  • Division of Plastic Surgery, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil
  • Universidade de São Paulo (BR)
Corresponding author
Coltro, Pedro Soler
Venue
Journal of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery
Published
2018-03-05
Volume
52
Issue
4
Pages
225-228
ISSN
  • 2000-656X (ISSN-L)
  • 2000-6764
OpenAlex
W2793589158
Cited by
3
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1
FWCI
0.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Reconstructive Facial Surgery Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Nasal Surgery and Airway Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Genetics › Congenital Ear and Nasal Anomalies
Keywords
otoplasty, suture complications, suture extrusion, hypertrophic scars, postoperative complications
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Child, Female, Humans, Male, Postoperative Complications, Retrospective Studies, Otologic Surgical Procedures, Surgical Flaps, Suture Techniques, Plastic Surgery Procedures, Ear Auricle, Young Adult

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