Cited by 12Reconstructive Facial Surgery TechniquesCongenital Ear and Nasal AnomaliesCraniofacial Disorders and Treatments

Autologous ear reconstruction for microtia does not result in loss of cutaneous sensitivity.

Denadai, Rafael, Raposo-Amaral, Cassio Eduardo, Zanco, Guilherme Luis, Raposo- Amaral, Cesar Augusto·2019·Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cutaneous sensitivity of microtia reconstruction has been sparsely documented. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether there is a loss of cutaneous sensitivity following two-stage autologous ear reconstruction for unilateral microtia. METHODS: A prospective study was performed including unilateral microtia patients who underwent two-stage autologous ear reconstruction performed by a single plastic surgeon between 2011 and 2016. Standardized sensory testing (i.e., temperature discrimination and Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments) was executed at 11 predefined anatomical points of the affected and unaffected ears preoperatively and at 6 and 12 months postoperatively. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients were included. Affected and unaffected sides presented similar (all p > 0.05) preoperative cutaneous sensitivity. Most (72.7 percent) of the tested points showed (all p < 0.05) preservation or recovery of cutaneous sensitivity at 12 months postoperatively. When comparing the reconstructed ears with the unaffected ears, there was no significant difference (all p > 0.05) in most (72.7 percent) of the tested points, except (all p < 0.05) at those points involving the postauricular sulcus. CONCLUSION: There is a temporary cutaneous sensitivity loss after a two-stage autologous microtia reconstruction, which returned to similar preoperative sensitivity at 12-month follow-up, except in the postauricular sulcus. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/prs.0000000000005485

Cites

64 of 64 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Denadai, R., Raposo-Amaral, C. E., Zanco, G. L., & Raposo- Amaral, C. A.
Affiliations
  • Hospital of Sobrapar (BR)
  • From the Institute of Plastic and Craniofacial Surgery, SOBRAPAR Hospital.
Venue
Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery
Published
2019-04
Volume
143
Issue
4
Pages
808e-819e
ISSN
0032-1052 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2934446782
Cited by
12
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2019: 3
FWCI
1.67
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 › Genetics › Congenital Ear and Nasal Anomalies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Craniofacial Disorders and Treatments
Keywords
microtia, two-stage reconstruction, cutaneous sensitivity, sensory impairment, temperature discrimination, Semmes-Weinstein monofilament
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Child, Female, Humans, Male, Postoperative Care, Prospective Studies, Sensation Disorders, Sensory Thresholds, Skin Physiological Phenomena, Transplantation, Autologous, Plastic Surgery Procedures, Congenital Microtia

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