Reconstructive Techniques in Pediatric Congenital Microtia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY Facial Plastic Surgery Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-17 DOI:10.1055/a-2247-5109
Hugh Andrew Jinwook Kim, Amirpouyan Namavarian, Urooj Khan, Ben B Levy, Hedyeh Ziai, Ben Talei, Andres M Gantous
{"title":"Reconstructive Techniques in Pediatric Congenital Microtia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.","authors":"Hugh Andrew Jinwook Kim, Amirpouyan Namavarian, Urooj Khan, Ben B Levy, Hedyeh Ziai, Ben Talei, Andres M Gantous","doi":"10.1055/a-2247-5109","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Autografts and allografts are commonly used in microtia reconstruction. We aimed to systematically review and compare these reconstructive materials in pediatric congenital microtia reconstruction. A systematic review of the literature was performed. MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases were searched for original studies on congenital microtia reconstruction in pediatric patients since database inception to 2021. Microtia grade was stratified as high or low. Meta-analysis of pooled proportions and continuous variables was performed using inverse variance weighting with a random effects model to compare between the autograft and allograft groups. Sixty-eight studies with a total of 5,546 patients used autografts (<i>n</i> = 5,382) or alloplastic implants (<i>n</i> = 164). Four other studies used prosthesis, cadaveric homografts, or tissue engineering. The allograft group was on average younger than the autograft group (8.4 vs. 11.1 years). There were no syndromic patients in the allograft group, compared to 43% in the autograft group. Patients treated with allografts had higher microtia grade than those treated with autograft (98 vs. 72%). Autografts were more commonly utilized by plastic surgeons and allografts by otolaryngologists (95 vs. 38%). No autografts and 41% of allografts were done concurrently with atresiaplasty or bone conduction implant. Satisfaction rates were similarly high (>90%) with similar complication rates (<10%). Microtia reconstruction using autografts and allografts had similar satisfaction and complication rates. Allografts were preferred for younger patients and concurrent hearing restoration. Further large-scale studies are required to evaluate the long-term efficacy of these reconstructive techniques.</p>","PeriodicalId":12195,"journal":{"name":"Facial Plastic Surgery","volume":" ","pages":"204-211"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Facial Plastic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2247-5109","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Autografts and allografts are commonly used in microtia reconstruction. We aimed to systematically review and compare these reconstructive materials in pediatric congenital microtia reconstruction. A systematic review of the literature was performed. MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases were searched for original studies on congenital microtia reconstruction in pediatric patients since database inception to 2021. Microtia grade was stratified as high or low. Meta-analysis of pooled proportions and continuous variables was performed using inverse variance weighting with a random effects model to compare between the autograft and allograft groups. Sixty-eight studies with a total of 5,546 patients used autografts (n = 5,382) or alloplastic implants (n = 164). Four other studies used prosthesis, cadaveric homografts, or tissue engineering. The allograft group was on average younger than the autograft group (8.4 vs. 11.1 years). There were no syndromic patients in the allograft group, compared to 43% in the autograft group. Patients treated with allografts had higher microtia grade than those treated with autograft (98 vs. 72%). Autografts were more commonly utilized by plastic surgeons and allografts by otolaryngologists (95 vs. 38%). No autografts and 41% of allografts were done concurrently with atresiaplasty or bone conduction implant. Satisfaction rates were similarly high (>90%) with similar complication rates (<10%). Microtia reconstruction using autografts and allografts had similar satisfaction and complication rates. Allografts were preferred for younger patients and concurrent hearing restoration. Further large-scale studies are required to evaluate the long-term efficacy of these reconstructive techniques.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
小儿先天性小耳症的整形技术:系统综述与元分析》。
目的:自体移植物和异体移植物常用于小耳畸形的重建。我们旨在系统回顾和比较这些重建材料在小儿先天性小耳症重建中的应用:我们对文献进行了系统回顾。我们检索了MEDLINE、Embase、PubMed、Web of Science和CINAHL数据库中自数据库建立至2021年有关儿科先天性小耳症重建的原始研究:小耳症等级分为高或低。采用反方差加权随机效应模型对汇总比例和连续变量进行元分析,比较自体移植组和异体移植组:68项研究共5546名患者使用了自体移植物(n=5382)或异体植入物(n=164)。另有四项研究使用了假体、尸体同种移植物或组织工程学。异体移植组的平均年龄比自体移植组年轻(8.4 岁对 11.1 岁)。同种异体移植物组没有出现综合征患者,而自体移植物组的这一比例为43%。接受异体移植治疗的患者的小耳症等级高于接受自体移植治疗的患者(98% 对 72%)。整形外科医生更常使用自体移植,而耳鼻喉科医生更常使用异体移植(95% 对 38%)。没有自体移植物和41%的异体移植物与耳道成形术或骨传导植入同时进行。满意率同样很高(大于 90%),并发症发生率也相似(结论:使用自体脂肪移植进行小耳畸形重建的成功率很高:使用自体移植物和异体移植物重建小耳症的满意度和并发症发生率相似。对于年轻患者和同时进行听力恢复的患者,异体移植更受欢迎。需要进一步开展大规模研究,以评估这些重建技术的长期疗效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Facial Plastic Surgery
Facial Plastic Surgery 医学-外科
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
10.00%
发文量
87
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Facial Plastic Surgery is a journal that publishes topic-specific issues covering areas of aesthetic and reconstructive plastic surgery as it relates to the head, neck, and face. The journal''s scope includes issues devoted to scar revision, periorbital and mid-face rejuvenation, facial trauma, facial implants, rhinoplasty, neck reconstruction, cleft palate, face lifts, as well as various other emerging minimally invasive procedures. Authors provide a global perspective on each topic, critically evaluate recent works in the field, and apply it to clinical practice.
期刊最新文献
Corrigendum: Structural Nasal Tip Grafting: Anatomy, Evaluation, and Technique Selection for Durable Aesthetic and Functional Outcomes. The Importance of Tip Support and The Caudal Septal Extension Graft. Scroll Turbinate Inter-cartilaginous Graft (STIG). Assessment of Nasal Breathing Function and Tip Definition after the Implementation of the Cephalic Lateral Crural Advancement Flap Technique. The Surgical Management of the Eye in Facial Palsy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1