CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 66Reconstructive Facial Surgery TechniquesCongenital Ear and Nasal AnomaliesReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques

Auricular reconstruction with porous polyethylene frameworks: outcome and patient benefit in 65 children and adults

Braun, Thomas, Gratza, Sonja, Becker, Sven, Schwentner, Ilona, Stelter, Klaus, Patscheider, Martin, Berghaus, Alexander, Hempel, John Martin·2010·Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
DOI 10.1097/prs.0b013e3181ebe391
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study evaluates outcome and patient benefit after plastic auricular reconstruction using a porous polyethylene framework and a temporoparietal fascia flap in both pediatric and adult patient collectives. METHODS: Seventy-eight patients were asked to answer validated questionnaires determining the effects of the reconstruction on the patients' health-related quality of life (Glasgow Benefit Inventory or Glasgow Children's Benefit Inventory); Glasgow Benefit Inventory and Glasgow Children's Benefit Inventory scores can range from -100 (maximal adverse effect), through 0 (no effect), to 100 (maximal positive effect). Furthermore, patients were questioned regarding satisfaction, complaints, and complications with the reconstructed ear. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients (83.3 percent) returned a valid questionnaire. In the adult collective (n = 45), the mean total Glasgow Benefit Inventory score was 21.2 (p < 0.001); 72.7 percent were satisfied with the aesthetic result, and 86.7 percent would again decide in favor of the operation. In the pediatric collective (n = 20), the mean total Glasgow Children's Benefit Inventory score was 27.7 (p < 0.001); 70.0 percent of the parents and 85.0 percent of the children were satisfied with the aesthetic result; 95.0 percent of the parents and 90.0 percent of the children would again decide in favor of the operation. The health-related quality of life was raised in 75.6 percent of the adults and 100 percent of the children. Scars and feel of the reconstructed ear were the main complaints in both collectives. Patients with acquired auricular defects were approximately two times as likely not to be satisfied with the result compared with patients with congenital defects. CONCLUSIONS: Auricular reconstruction using a porous polyethylene framework can significantly increase patients' health-related quality of life, and leads to a high rate of patient satisfaction.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/prs.0b013e3181ebe391

Cites

17 of 17 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?

  • Osteointegrated prostheses, costochondral implants, or polyethylene Medpor implants are the preferred methods to reconstruct near-total to total ear defects.

    “Osteointegrated prostheses, costochondral implants, or polyethylene Medpor (Stryker Corp., Kalamazoo, MI) implants are the preferred methods to reconstruct near-total to total ear defects.5,[34][35][36][37][38]”

    From Ear Reconstruction following Mohs Micrographic Surgery (2024) · cites this paper as [34]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Braun, T., Gratza, S., Becker, S., Schwentner, I., Stelter, K., Patscheider, M., Berghaus, A., & Hempel, J. M.
Affiliations
Innsbruck Medical University (AT)
ORCID
Venue
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2010-10
Volume
126
Issue
4
Pages
1201-1212
ISSN
0032-1052 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1097/prs.0b013e3181ebe391
OpenAlex
W2035436476
Cited by
66
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 8
FWCI
6.40
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
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Reconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques
Keywords
ear reconstruction, temporoparietal fascia flap, health-related quality of life, patient satisfaction, pediatric patients, Glasgow Benefit Inventory
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Child, Child, Preschool, Ear Deformities, Acquired, Esthetics, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Retrospective Studies, Surgical Flaps, Treatment Outcome, Patient Satisfaction, Plastic Surgery Procedures, Prostheses and Implants, Polyethylene, 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