Alloplastic Auricular Reconstruction: Review of Implant Types, Adverse Events, and Aesthetic Outcomes.


Journal

The Journal of craniofacial surgery
ISSN: 1536-3732
Titre abrégé: J Craniofac Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9010410

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Sep 2020
Historique:
pubmed: 7 5 2020
medline: 13 2 2021
entrez: 7 5 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Alloplastic implants have been applied successfully in reconstruction of the external ear, either for congenital microtia or traumatic injury. The objective of this study was to conduct a comprehensive systematic review of alloplastic implant materials utilized in the reconstruction of the external ear stratified by indication, specific implant type, postoperative complications, and aesthetic outcomes. A comprehensive systematic review of published literature on alloplastic external ear reconstruction data was conducted utilizing Medline/PubMed database without timeframe limitations in June 2019. Articles were stratified by (1) indication (microtia versus trauma reconstruction) and (2) implant material type. All postoperative complications were recorded and comparatively analyzed between implant types. Aesthetic outcomes were also identified and compared between implant types. A total of 755 patients (14 case series; follow-up range = 3 months--10 years) met the criteria for this study. Overall complication rate was 12.05% across all indications and materials used. The most frequent complications reported were graft exposure (7.8%), graft explantation (1.72%), and wound dehiscence (0.8%). Of the patients requiring graft explantation (n = 13), 7 (53.85%) received Medpor implants, and the other 6 (46.15%) were identified in silicone implants. Infection was only reported in Medpor implants. The overall rate of an acceptable aesthetic outcome was 99.34%. Alloplastic implants are a reliable means of achieving an acceptable complication profile in external ear reconstruction. While there was an overall high rate of acceptable aesthetic outcomes, the studies evaluated in this systematic review differed in their criteria for final evaluation of aesthetic outcomes.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32371710
doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000006481
pii: 00001665-202009000-00025
doi:

Substances chimiques

Medpor 0
Polyethylenes 0

Types de publication

Journal Article Systematic Review

Langues

eng

Pagination

1593-1596

Références

Bly RA, Bhrany AD, Murakami CS, et al. Microtia reconstruction. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 2016; 24:577591.
Storck K, Staudenmaier R, Buchberger M, et al. Total reconstruction of the auricle: our experiences on indications and recent techniques. Biomed Res Int 2014; 2014:373286.
Owen S, Wang T, Stephan S. Alloplastic reconstruction of the microtic ear. Oper Tech Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2017; 28:97104.
Berghaus A. Implants for reconstructive surgery of the nose and ears. GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2008; 6:Doc06.
Kolodzynski MN, Kon M, Egger S, et al. Mechanisms of ear trauma and reconstructive techniques in 105 consecutive patients. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2016; 274:723728.
Kim HS, Park SS, Kim MH, et al. Problems associated with alloplastic materials in rhinoplasty. Yonsei Med J 2014; 55:16171623.
Ali K, Trost JG, Truong TA, et al. Total ear reconstruction using porous polyethylene. Semin Plast Surg 2017; 31:161172.
Thorne CH. Ear Reconstruction. 2014; Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 283–329.
Stucker FJ, Gage-White L. Survey of surgical implants. Fac Plast Surg 1986; 3:141144.
Shirakabe Y, Suzuki Y, Lam SM. A systematic approach to rhinoplasty of the Japanese nose: a thirty-year experience. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2003; 27:221231.
Lynch JB, Pousti JE, Doyle JE, et al. Our experiences with silastic ear implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 1972; 49:283285.
Kludt NA, Vu H. 2014. Auricular reconstruction with prolonged tissue expansion and porous polyethylene implants. Ann Plast Surg 2014;72:S14–S17.
Romo T 3rd, Reitzen SD. Aesthetic microtia reconstruction with Medpor. Facial Plast Surg 2008; 24:120128.
Anghinoni M, Bailleul C, Magri AS. Auricular reconstruction of congenital microtia: personal experience in 225 cases. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 2015; 35:191197.
Chen HY, Ng LS, Chang CS, et al. Pursuing mirror image reconstruction in unilateral microtia: customizing auricular framework by application of three-dimensional imaging and three-dimensional printing. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 139:14331443.
Zhang Q, Zhang R, Xu F, et al. Firm elevation of the reconstructed auricle with a retroauricular fascial flap wrapping an EH (a mixture of epoxide acrylate malelic and hydroxyapatite) composite wedge. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2010; 63:14521458.
Ohmori S, Sekiguchi H. Follow-up study of the reconstruction of microtia using Silastic frame. Aesthetic Plast Surg 1984; 8:16.

Auteurs

Jeremie D Oliver (JD)

University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, UT.

Daniel Rodriguez (D)

Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine, Scottsdale, AZ.

Derek Scott (D)

Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine, Scottsdale, AZ.

Katherine B Santosa (KB)

Section of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.

Michael S Hu (MS)

Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH