CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 4Reconstructive Facial Surgery TechniquesReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular TechniquesCongenital Ear and Nasal Anomalies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Postauricular pull-through transposition flap for an anterior auricular defect.

Open access
Cerejeira, André, Amoedo, Patrícia, Costa-Silva, Miguel, Azevedo, Filomena·2022·Journal of Cutaneous and Aesthetic Surgery
DOI 10.4103/jcas.jcas_50_21PMC PMC10081467
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

area render reconstructive procedures challenging.

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 · 10.4103/jcas.jcas_50_21

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 A: Squamous cell carcinoma of the right conchal bowl and antihelix. B: Defect of the right conchal bowl and antihelix measuring 2.4 × 1.7 cm. C: Flap donor site was marked and peripherally excised, preserving a subcutaneous pedicle that originated from the postauricular sulcus. D: The flap was then pulled through a tunnel and adapted to the defect, without tension, torsion, or impingement of the pedicle. E: The flap was sutured into place. F: The secondary defect was easily closed primarily. G: Nine months after surgery, an excellent cosmetic outcome was observed (lateral view). H: Nine months after surgery, an excellent cosmetic outcome was observed (posterior view)
Figure 1 A: Squamous cell carcinoma of the right conchal bowl and antihelix. B: Defect of the right conchal bowl and antihelix measuring 2.4 × 1.7 cm. C: Flap donor site was marked and peripherally excised, preserving a subcutaneous pedicle that originated from the postauricular sulcus. D: The flap was then pulled through a tunnel and adapted to the defect, without tension, torsion, or impingement of the pedicle. E: The flap was sutured into place. F: The secondary defect was easily closed primarily. G: Nine months after surgery, an excellent cosmetic outcome was observed (lateral view). H: Nine months after surgery, an excellent cosmetic outcome was observed (posterior view)CC BY-NC-SA · PubMed Central

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

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 4

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Cerejeira, A., Amoedo, P., Costa-Silva, M., & Azevedo, F.
Affiliations
Hospital de São João (PT)
Corresponding author
Cerejeira, André
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Cutaneous and Aesthetic Surgery
Publisher
Scientific Scholar
Published
2022
Volume
15
Issue
4
Pages
434
ISSN
0974-2077 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.4103/jcas.jcas_50_21
PMC
PMC10081467
OpenAlex
W4319979474
Cited by
4
References
3
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 1
FWCI
0.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-sa
Locations
  • Journal of Cutaneous and Aesthetic Surgery (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Reconstructive Facial Surgery Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Reconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Genetics (clinical) › Congenital Ear and Nasal Anomalies
Keywords
postauricular flap, transposition flap, ear reconstruction

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