CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 8Reconstructive Facial Surgery TechniquesCongenital Ear and Nasal AnomaliesNasal Surgery and Airway Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Threshold of tactile perception in a reconstructed auricle.

Open access
Öberg, Martin, Svensson, Henry, Becker, Magnus, Wikström, Sven-Olof·2011·Journal of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery
DOI 10.3109/2000656x.2010.542653
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

There are more important outcome variables than the aesthetic when it comes to a successful result in reconstruction of the ear for microtia. The protective sensitivity, for example, is important to avoid damage to the skin covering the cartilaginous framework. We studied 39 patients with unilateral microtia and recorded their skin sensitivity more than six months after the last operation. The Semmes-Weinstein Monofilament Test (SWMT) was used to assess the threshold of protective sensitivity in three particular areas: the helix, the anthelix, and the lobule. The opposite ear served as control. A monofilament of 4.31 or less was regarded as acceptable protective sensitivity. Thirty-two patients had acceptable sensitivity in the whole ear, but the helix gave a poor result in seven patients and in one of them so did the anthelix.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3109/2000656x.2010.542653

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • The study's results align with previous studies evaluating sensation after ear reconstruction and extend those findings by directly contrasting CF and FSG techniques.

    “Nonetheless, our results align with previous studies evaluating sensation after ear reconstruction11–13 and, for the first time, extend those findings by directly contrasting CF and FSG techniques.”

    From Postoperative Cutaneous Sensory Recovery After Different Surgical Approaches for Microtia and Ear Reconstruction (2025) · cites this paper as [13]

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Öberg, M., Svensson, H., Becker, M., & Wikström, S.-O.
Affiliations
Lund University (SE)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2011-02
Volume
45
Issue
1
Pages
23-27
ISSN
  • 2000-656X (ISSN-L)
  • 2000-6764
DOI
10.3109/2000656x.2010.542653
OpenAlex
W1789157537
Cited by
8
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2013: 2
FWCI
0.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Reconstructive Facial Surgery Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Genetics (clinical) › Congenital Ear and Nasal Anomalies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Nasal Surgery and Airway Studies
Keywords
microtia, ear reconstruction, tactile perception, Semmes-Weinstein monofilament test, skin sensation, auricular cartilage, helix, lobules, postoperative outcomes
MeSH terms
Congenital Abnormalities, Adolescent, Adult, Child, Ear, Female, Humans, Male, Postoperative Period, Sensory Thresholds, Treatment Outcome, Plastic Surgery Procedures, Ear Auricle, Touch Perception, Young Adult, 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