A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Auricular reconstruction in microtia for soft tissue coverage: Flap pocket method versus expansion method. | LitMetric

Auricular reconstruction in microtia for soft tissue coverage: Flap pocket method versus expansion method.

Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol

Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, 639 Zhizaoju Road, Shanghai, 200011, China.

Published: January 2022

Background: Auricular reconstruction is the sole therapy for external ear deformities. The flap pocket method and the expansion method are currently the two principal auricular reconstruction methods in microtia. The efficacy and safety of these two surgical techniques has long been a subject of controversy, bedeviled by a lack of objective comparative evidence.

Methods: The authors searched the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases for clinical studies on auricular reconstruction in microtia updated to Jan 1, 2021. A meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the major outcomes for patient convenience, incidence of complications and postoperative patient satisfaction.

Results: A total of twenty-two articles involving 7963 patients were included in this study. Nine studies involving 2475 patients concerned the flap pocket method and thirteen studies involving 5488 patients concerned the expansion method. The pooled patient satisfaction rate was higher using the flap pocket method than the expansion method (90.5% versus 83.3%, p = 0.000). Total complication incidence was lower using the flap pocket method than with the expansion method (6.8% versus 9.5%, p = 0.000). There were zero expander-related complications using the flap pocket method, but a 4% complication incidence using the expansion method. The total treatment period for the flap pocket method was 5.57 ± 1.13 months, much shorter than the 10.75 ± 3.54 months (p < 0.05) of the expansion method.

Conclusions: In microtia, the flap pocket method scores higher on patient satisfaction, while having lower post-operative complications and a shorter treatment period compared with the expansion method.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2021.110987DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

flap pocket
28
pocket method
28
expansion method
24
auricular reconstruction
16
method
13
method expansion
12
reconstruction microtia
8
studies involving
8
patients concerned
8
complication incidence
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!