Clinical evaluation of three total ear reconstruction methods

Zhao, Yongqiang; Wang, Yanmei; Zhuang, H.; Jiang, Haiyue; Jiang, Wenjie; Hu, Xiaogen; Hu, Shuodou; Wang, Shujie; Pan, Bo

doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2008.07.009

Cited by 39 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Sengezer et al, 1996 mentioned that the results were accepted as pleasing by the 10 adult patients of ear reconstruction cases were performed by using porous polyethylene implants [18]. Zhao et al 2009 achieved excellent results in 301 patients (84.8%) from 355 patients reconstructed by porous polyethylene [9]. In this article we achieve satisfactory results in 9 (81.8%) from 11 cases.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 62%

“…Accurate reconstruction of the external ear after trauma, burn or local excision of tumors is demanding and difficult due to the complex tissue structure of the auricle and also has been a common challenge in plastic surgery [2,9]. The helical rim, the anti-helix fold with its crura, and the concha are structures with highly-elastic stability that prevent collapse of the auricle [3].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Framework fabrication is one of the important steps in ear reconstruction [10]. The use of autogenous rib cartilage framework was first proposed by Tanzer in 1959 [9], then Brent improved techniques and combined the use of expanded postauricular flap with autogenous rib cartilage framework [11].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Infection of the rib cartilage framework is a severe complication, it difficult to cure with antibiotics [9]. The homogenous costal cartilages and fibrocartilage framework, have mainly failed as a result of infection and absorption [5].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sengezer et al 1996 reported one infected case from ten implants was salvaged by irrigation with antibiotics [18]. Zhao et al 2009 mentioned that the infection was in 8 cases (0.5%) from 1485 cases underwent autogenous graft framework while was 1 case (0.2%) in 355 MEDPOR ® alloplastic frame cases [9]. While Wellisz, 1993 reported no cases of infection occurred in 41 patients with porous polyethylene Implants were placed as an ear framework reconstructions [12].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Reconstruction of Partial Auricular Defects by Polypropylene Mesh Helix Framework

Mehanna¹

2012

MPS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Current techniques in partial auricular reconstruction can utilize an autologous or alloplastic framework covered by a variety of soft tissue envelopes. Objective: Is to evaluate the benefit of using polypropylene mesh to reconstruct helix framework in partial auricular defects covered with local postauricular skin flap. Method: Eleven patients with partial auricular defect were treated by using polypropylene mesh helix framework which is covered with post auricular flap in a two stage repair; clinical results of the procedure were evaluated. Results: This technique achieved satisfactory results in 9 (81.8%) cases. Early Post operative complications: Hematoma formation in one case, mild infection in two cases, edema in two cases, and Partial overlying skin breakdown in one case with failure of technique. Late Post operative complications: Hypertrophic scar in one case, narrow retroauricular sulcus in one case, hair bearing skin over the auricle in one case. Conclusion: It is a simple technique, with satisfactory clinical results, easily done, even under local anesthesia, with no donor site morbidity of autogenous cartilage harvesting, not costly as other alloplastic substitutes, large series and longer follow up period are needed for better evaluation of this technique.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 62%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Reconstruction of Partial Auricular Defects by Polypropylene Mesh Helix Framework

Mehanna¹

2012

MPS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Outer Ear Construction: Is Advocacy Part of Treatment?

2010

AMA Journal of Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Jonathan was born with unilateral right-sided grade III microtia; his external ear was absent, with a peanut-sized structure in its place and the external ear canal and ear drum also missing. Testing showed that his right inner ear was intact and his hearing was normal on the left side. A CT scan revealed that his right ear canal did exist. Jonathan's parents were counseled to wait until he turned 8 years old to pursue reconstructive surgery, so his ear would be closer to adult size. Shortly after his 8th birthday, Jonathan's parents made an appointment with Dr. Cavanaugh, who had completed both otolaryngology residency and a plastic and reconstructive surgery fellowship. After discussing the risks and benefits of the procedure, Dr. Cavanaugh performed a rib cartilage graft reconstruction procedure on Jonathan. Dr. Cavanaugh had completed the first two stages of her three-stage reconstruction when Jonathan's insurance company denied preoperative clearance for the third stage, deeming it an elective enhancement procedure not sufficiently related to ear function.Dr. Cavanaugh helped Jonathan's parents appeal the insurance company's decision, but they were rejected twice. Understandably, they were frustrated, and began investigating alternatives. They were informed that other insurance companies also considered the third surgery an elective procedure ineligible for coverage. They decided to seek media publicity to either help raise funds for the final operation or to convince the insurance company to "do the right thing" for the sake of public relations. Jonathan's parents found a television station that would air their story if they could persuade the doctor to appear on camera or at least comment on the insurance company's decision. CommentaryIn taking the Hippocratic Oath, every graduating medical student pledges to "apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism" [1]. Simply put, by exercising our knowledge of physiology and anatomy and our skills in therapeutic maneuvers, we administer to those who are sick so that they may be made whole again. Furthermore, we have also sworn to "respect the privacy of [our] patients, for their problems are not disclosed to [us] that the world may know" [1]. However, patients can certainly choose to disseminate private medical information if they wish. Disclosing one's condition to the world is like signing a waiver of

show abstract

The Contested Status of Cosmetic and Reconstructive Plastic Surgery

Grant

2010

AMA Journal of Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Clinical evaluation of three total ear reconstruction methods

Cited by 39 publications

References 6 publications

Reconstruction of Partial Auricular Defects by Polypropylene Mesh Helix Framework

Reconstruction of Partial Auricular Defects by Polypropylene Mesh Helix Framework

Outer Ear Construction: Is Advocacy Part of Treatment?

The Contested Status of Cosmetic and Reconstructive Plastic Surgery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About