Cited by 8Reconstructive Facial Surgery TechniquesNasal Surgery and Airway StudiesCongenital Ear and Nasal Anomalies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Endoscopic otoplasty in the rabbit model: effect of mechanical abrasion on ear cartilage deformation.

Hagerty, Thomas A., Barone, Eleanor J., Cohen, Kelman I.·1998·Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

Abstract

The purpose of this study was (1) to introduce an endoscopic technique for performing otoplasty; (2) to compare the durability of folding with scoring, sutures, or abrasion; and (3) to study the histologic changes associated with three techniques. Thirteen adult New Zealand White rabbits (26 ears) were divided into three otoplasty groups: bent cartilage (nine ears), cut cartilage (nine ears), or endoscopic abrasion of cartilage (eight ears). In all three groups, the ears were folded using external mattress sutures, with a transverse 180-degree fold. Sutures were removed at 1 to 6 weeks, and the ears followed for 4 weeks postoperatively. Ear-folding angles were followed weekly from suture removal to 4 weeks postoperatively. After sacrifice, the ear cartilage was harvested for histologic analysis. The ears were maintained in a 180-degree ventral fold by splinting sutures, which were removed at various times. Four weeks after suture removal, the mean ear angles were 13 degrees in the bent (control) group, 84 degrees in the cut group, and 132 degrees in the abraded group. The differences between the abraded and cut versus bent groups were significant (p = 0.0001 and 0.0073, respectively). There was no significant difference between the abraded versus cut groups. Histologic analysis showed perichondrial thickening on the convex surface in all of the groups. Fibrocartilage was produced in the cut and abraded groups. Based on histologic observation, the repair cartilage in the cut group was more fibrous, whereas that in the endoscopic group was more abundant with marked degenerative changes in the central zone. A new method of percutaneous endoscopic otoplasty in the rabbit model is described. This study showed that endoscopic otoplasty produced folding that was well maintained during the study period.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00006534-199802000-00038

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 8

Metadata

Authors
Hagerty, T. A., Barone, E. J., & Cohen, K. I.
Affiliations
Virginia Commonwealth University (US)
Venue
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
Published
1998-02
Volume
101
Issue
2
Pages
487-493
ISSN
0032-1052 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2028831556
Cited by
8
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2013: 2
FWCI
1.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Plastic & Reconstructive 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 (clinical) › Congenital Ear and Nasal Anomalies
Keywords
otoplasty, auricular cartilage, fibrocartilage, cartilage histology, rabbit model, external ear deformity
MeSH terms
Animals, Ear Cartilage, Ear, External, Endoscopy, Rabbits, Time Factors, Plastic Surgery Procedures

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