Cited by 12Reconstructive Facial Surgery TechniquesCongenital Ear and Nasal AnomaliesReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques

Helical advancement: pearls and pitfalls.

Open access
Al-Shaham, AA·2012·Canadian Journal of Plastic Surgery

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Reconstruction of acquired auricular defects is a challenging procedure. Since its emergence, the helical advancement technique has proved to be an excellent method of repairing many auricle defects. This technique may occasionally result in an alteration in the dimensions of the neoauricle, with subsequent deformity. However, the advantages of this technique are well known, while the pitfalls are scarce. OBJECTIVE: To critically review the selection criteria of patients with acquired auricular defects to determine which are eligible for helical advancement technique without subsequent deformity. METHODS: From March 2004 to January 2006, 18 patients with three types of upper one-third auricle defects underwent the helical advancement procedure. All patients were male, with mean age of 33.5 years. The defects ranged from 1.2 cm to 4.3 cm in length. Two helical flaps (one on either side of the injury) were advanced along the helical margin to ensure closure. The vertical and horizontal auricular axes were measured before and after surgery, and the actual reduction in millimetres was calculated. Patients were followed up for three months postoperatively. Assessment of the surgical outcome was performed by surgeon (with patient feedback) in the final patient visit. RESULTS: The principle pitfall in the form of small neoauricle with or without cupping was reported in five patients (27.77%). The defects in these cases were >2.8 cm and the mean resultant reduction in vertical axes was >5 mm. Statistical analysis resulted in χ(2)=4.24 and P=0.04. CONCLUSION: The three varieties of upper one-third auricle defects can best be corrected by the helical advancement technique when the defect is <2.8 cm. Furthermore, perioperative reduction in the vertical axis of the neoauricle >5 mm was an important predictive factor in the development of subsequent deformity.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/229255031202000206

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 12 · Cited by 12

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [9]Brent BD. The acquired auricular deformity. A systematic approach to its analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1977;59:575–85. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. [13]Benedict M, Pirwitz KU. Plastic external ear reduction in bilateral macrotia. J Laryngol Otol. 2003;1176:487–9. doi: 10.1007/s106-002-8066-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI

Authors
Al-Shaham, A.
Affiliations
University of Baghdad (IQ)
Corresponding author
Al-Shaham, AA
Venue
Canadian Journal of Plastic Surgery
Published
2012-05
Volume
20
Issue
2
Pages
28-31
ISSN
1195-2199 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1522213401
Cited by
12
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2015: 1
FWCI
0.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Plastic Surgery (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (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, cupping therapy, defect length, patient selection criteria

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