The use of medpor as a projection block for the elevation of the constructed auricle in total auricular reconstruction

Methodological Quality of Open Access Compared to Traditional Journal Publications in the Plastic Surgery Literature

BACKGROUND

The methodological quality of open access studies has long been questioned due to increasing popularity and accessibility. The objective of this study is to compare the methodological quality of open access versus traditional journal publications in the plastic surgery literature.

METHODS

Four traditional plastic surgery journals with their sister open access journals were chosen. For each of the eight journals, 10 articles were randomly selected for inclusion. Methodological quality was examined using validated instruments. Publication descriptors were compared to methodological quality values using ANOVA. Logistic regression was used to compare quality scores between open access and traditional journals.

RESULTS

There was a wide distribution of levels of evidence, with a quarter being level one. Regression of non-randomized studies indicated a significantly higher proportion of traditional journal articles were of high methodological quality (89.6%) when compared to open access journals (55.6%; p < 0.05). This difference persisted in three quarter of the sister journal groups. No publication descriptions were associated with methodological quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Methodological quality scores were higher among traditional access journals. Higher degrees of peer review may be necessary to ensure appropriate methodological quality in open access plastic surgery publications.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Firm elevation of the auricle in reconstruction of microtia with a retroauricular fascial flap wrapping two titanium plate struts

BACKGROUND

Reconstruction of the cephaloauricular sulcus in patients with microtia in ear reconstructions remains challenging. Costal cartilage and other support materials wedge were used for ear elevation. Each material has its disadvantages. To reconstruct a stable cephaloauricular sulcus and reduce costal cartilage harvesting, we used two titanium plate struts to support the costal cartilage framework.

METHODS

A titanium plate strut was designed. The angle of the strut was 60°, the arm length was 0.8 cm, and the width was 0.5 cm. The thickness was 0.6 mm. Four small pores are formed on the titanium plate. The implanted framework was separated from the underlying bed. Two titanium plate struts were fixed on the raised ear framework, tendon, and periosteum, and then wrapped with a turned-over retroauricular fascia flap. The raw surface was covered with a split-thickness skin graft, harvested from the scalp.

RESULTS

From 2019 to 2022, 51 patients underwent second-stage operations. All patients were followed up for a minimum of 6 months. The auricular projection was well-maintained, and the cephaloauricular sulcus of the constructed auricle was acceptable in 50 patients. There was one infection, and the titanium plate struts were removed, which resulted in shrinking cephaloauricular angles.

CONCLUSIONS

Titanium plate is effective as a supportive material to obtain the proper and firm projection of the constructed auricle. It provides a new option for patients whose costal cartilage volume is insufficient or who do not want to have the costal cartilage harvested again.

Long-term aesthetics, patient-reported outcomes, and auricular sensitivity after microtia reconstruction: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Auricular reconstruction for microtia is most frequently performed using autologous costal cartilage (ACC) or porous polyethylene (PPE) implants. Short-term results are generally promising, but long-term results remain unclear. Long-term outcomes were explored in this systematic review, and minimal reporting criteria were suggested for future original data studies.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception through October 14, 2020. Articles on auricular reconstruction in patients with microtia using ACC or PPE were included if postsurgical follow-up was at least 1 year. Outcome reporting was split into separate publications, and results on complications were reported previously. This publication focused on long-term aesthetic, patient-reported, and sensitivity outcomes.

RESULTS

Forty-one publications reported on these outcomes. Both materials led to aesthetically pleasing results and high rates of patient satisfaction. ACC frameworks grew similarly to contralateral ears, and the anterior surface of auricles regained sensitivity. Furthermore, postoperative health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes were generally good. Data synthesis was limited due to considerable variability between studies and poor study quality. No conclusions could be drawn on the superiority of either method due to the lack of comparative analyses.

CONCLUSION

Future studies should minimally report (1) surgical efficacy measured using the tool provided in the UK Care Standards for the Management of Patients with Microtia and Atresia; (2) complications including framework extrusion or exposure, graft loss, framework resorption, wire exposure and scalp/auricular scar complications and (3) HRQoL before and after treatment using the EAR-Q patient-reported outcome measure (PROM).

Long-term complications of microtia reconstruction: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Microtia is a rare disorder characterized by malformation or even complete absence of the auricle. Reconstruction is often performed using autologous costal cartilage (ACC) or porous polyethylene implants (PPE). However, the long-term outcomes of both methods are unclear.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aimed to analyze long-term complications and suggest minimal reporting criteria for future original data studies.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception through October 14, 2020. Articles on auricular reconstruction in patients with microtia using ACC or PPE were included provided that the follow-up period was at least one year. This publication focused on long-term complications reported in patients with a postoperative follow-up period of at least one year.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine publications reported on complications during long-term follow-up. Overall long-term complication rates were not reported. The incidence of individual complications during long-term follow-up was less than 10% after ACC reconstruction and less than 15% in PPE reconstruction. Framework resorption and wire exposure were reported even after an extended follow-up of more than five years after ACC reconstruction, while reports on the extended long-term results of PPE reconstruction are limited. Data synthesis was limited due to heterogeneity and poor study quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Future studies should report on long-term complications including framework exposure or extrusion, graft loss, framework resorption, wire exposure and scalp and auricular scar complications. We recommend a surgical follow-up of at least five years.

Microtia and cholesteatoma: Implications for the reconstructive surgeon

Infection after reconstructive surgery for microtia is a technical challenge. This can be a sign of cholesteatoma formation by entrapment of epithelium in the middle or outer ear, specifically when the patient does not respond to first choice antibiotic therapy and debridement.

Two patients with microtia presented themselves with severe infections after ear reconstruction. In both cases cholesteatoma was diagnosed as the cause of the infection. After cholesteatoma management an additional surgical procedure was necessary to improve the esthetic outcome. The plastic surgeon should identify possible signs of cholesteatoma after reconstruction of the auricle.