Cited by 113Reconstructive Facial Surgery TechniquesNasal Surgery and Airway StudiesReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Comparison of the mechanical properties of different skin sites for auricular and nasal reconstruction

Open access
Griffin, M. F., Leung, B. C., Premakumar, Y., Szarko, M., Butler, P. E.·2017·Journal of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery

Abstract

Background: Autologous and synthetic nasal and auricular frameworks require skin coverage. The surgeon's decides on the appropriate skin coverage for reconstruction based on colour matching, subcutaneous tissue thickness, expertise and experience. One of the major complications of placing subcutaneous implants is the risk of extrusion (migration through the skin) and infection. However, knowledge of lessening the differential between the soft tissue and the framework can have important implications for extrusion. This study compared the mechanical properties of the skin commonly used as skin sites for the coverage in auricular and nasal reconstruction. Methods: Using ten fresh human cadavers, the tensile Young's Modulus of the skin from the forehead, forearm, temporoparietal, post-auricular and submandibular neck was assessed. The relaxation rate and absolute relaxation level was also assessed after 90 min of relaxation. Results: The submandibular skin showed the greatest Young's elastic modulus in tension of all regions (1.28 MPa ±0.06) and forearm showed the lowest (1.03 MPa ±0.06). The forehead demonstrated greater relaxation rates among the different skin regions (7.8 MPa −07 ± 0.1). The forearm showed the lowest rate of relaxation (4.74 MPa −07 ± 0.1). The forearm (0.04 MPa ±0.004) and submandibular neck skin (0.04 MPa ±0.005) showed similar absolute levels of relaxation, which were significantly greater than the other skin regions ( p < 0.05). Conclusions: This study provides an understanding into the biomechanical properties of the skin of different sites allowing surgeons to consider this parameter when trying to identify the optimal skin coverage in nasal and auricular reconstruction.

Overview

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 · 10.1186/s40463-017-0210-6

Cites

Statistics

Verification

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?

  • Working collagen I concentrations at physiological levels do not recapitulate the mechanical properties of the native ECM.

    “However, working collagen I concentrations at physiological levels[59,62,63] do not recapitulate the mechanical properties of the native ECM[64–66].”

    From Efficient Generation of Skin Organoids from Pluripotent Cells via Defined Extracellular Matrix Cues and Morphogen Gradients in a Spindle‐Shaped Microfluidic Device (2024) · cites this paper as [64]

    The Results (Biomechanical testing; page unavailable) report Young’s elastic moduli for native skin at several sites, providing measurements of native-tissue mechanical properties. The paper does not test working collagen I concentrations or compare collagen I materials with native ECM, so it does not establish that they fail to recapitulate those properties. (LLM, conf=0.79)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 21

  1. Berghaus A, 2007, Head Neck Surg, 6, Doc06
  2. 10.1097/01.prs.0000298113.56554.c3 · DOI
  3. 10.1002/micr.22030 · DOI
  4. 10.1016/j.bjps.2008.07.009 · DOI
  5. 10.1097/PRS.0b013e31822b6a82 · DOI
  6. 10.1097/01.prs.0000200068.73092.5d · DOI
  7. 10.1001/archfacial.2010.54 · DOI
  8. 10.1007/s00266-012-9911-4 · DOI
  9. 10.1016/j.ijporl.2006.11.025 · DOI
  10. 10.1007/s10856-015-5619-8 · DOI
  11. 10.1007/s10439-016-1688-1 · DOI
  12. Silver FH, 1992, J Long Term Eff Med Implants, 2, 165
  13. 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2013.12.034 · DOI
  14. 10.3791/54872-v · DOI
  15. Wilkes GL, 1973, CRC Crit Rev Bioeng, 1, 453
  16. 10.1111/1523-1747.ep12530093 · DOI
  17. 10.1111/dsu.12095 · DOI
  18. 10.1034/j.1600-0846.2001.007001018.x · DOI
  19. 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2011.08.016 · DOI
  20. 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2005.12.010 · DOI
  21. 10.1038/srep32074 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Griffin, M. F., Leung, B. C., Premakumar, Y., Szarko, M., & Butler, P. E.
Affiliations
  • St George's, University of London (GB)
  • The Royal Free Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Griffin, M. F.
Venue
Journal of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery
Published
2017-01
Volume
46
Issue
1
Pages
33-33
ISSN
  • 1916-0208 (ISSN-L)
  • 1916-0216
OpenAlex
W2606938057
Cited by
113
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 1
FWCI
2.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Medical Research Council (GN2339)
  • Action Medical Research (GN2339)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Reconstructive Facial Surgery Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Nasal Surgery and Airway Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Reconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques
Keywords
skin biomechanics, Young's modulus, skin coverage, ear reconstruction, nasal reconstruction, subcutaneous implants, implant extrusion, implant-associated infection, forehead skin, forearm skin
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Cadaver, Face, Forearm, Humans, Male, Neck, Rhinoplasty, Skin Physiological Phenomena, Surgical Flaps, Ear Auricle, Elastic Modulus, Transplant Donor Site, Dermatologic Surgical 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