Microtia Reconstruction: 30-Day Outcomes for Autograft Versus Implant Reconstruction in a National Surgical Database.

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q2 Dentistry Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal Pub Date : 2025-03-18 DOI:10.1177/10556656251324259
Kevin Gao Hu, Jacqueline Ihnat, Jeremy A Goss, Omar Allam, Neil Parikh, Andrew Salib, Ali Aral, Michael Alperovich
{"title":"Microtia Reconstruction: 30-Day Outcomes for Autograft Versus Implant Reconstruction in a National Surgical Database.","authors":"Kevin Gao Hu, Jacqueline Ihnat, Jeremy A Goss, Omar Allam, Neil Parikh, Andrew Salib, Ali Aral, Michael Alperovich","doi":"10.1177/10556656251324259","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><i>Objective</i>To compare the use of porous polyethylene implants versus autologous reconstruction for ear reconstruction in patients with microtia or anotia.<i>Design</i>Retrospective cohort study.<i>Setting</i>Hospitals included in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project-Pediatrics, between 2016 and 2022.<i>Patients</i>Children with diagnoses of microtia or anotia.<i>Interventions</i>Ear reconstruction utilizing either a porous-polyethylene implant or autologous reconstruction.<i>Main Outcome Measures</i>Rates of wound complication, hospital readmission, reoperation, and hospital lengths-of-stay within 30 days of index surgery.<i>Results</i>There were 986 patients meeting inclusion criteria, including 893 receiving autograft and 93 receiving synthetic implant. Complication rates, including wound complication, dehiscence, and surgical site infection are similar between the 2 cohorts, though deep surgical site infections are more frequent in patients receiving implant reconstruction.Patients receiving implant reconstruction have a 4-fold higher odds of hospital readmission and a 9-fold higher odds of reoperation within 30 days after controlling for patient characteristics and surgeon specialty. Patients receiving implant reconstruction also have shorter hospital lengths-of-stay.<i>Conclusions</i>Ear reconstruction using autologous cartilage provides better 30-day outcomes compared to implant-based reconstruction with respect to rates of reoperation and readmission. However, these differences may be reflective more of limited surgeon experience with using synthetic implants than of the best possible outcomes achievable with each technique.</p>","PeriodicalId":49220,"journal":{"name":"Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal","volume":" ","pages":"10556656251324259"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10556656251324259","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ObjectiveTo compare the use of porous polyethylene implants versus autologous reconstruction for ear reconstruction in patients with microtia or anotia.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingHospitals included in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project-Pediatrics, between 2016 and 2022.PatientsChildren with diagnoses of microtia or anotia.InterventionsEar reconstruction utilizing either a porous-polyethylene implant or autologous reconstruction.Main Outcome MeasuresRates of wound complication, hospital readmission, reoperation, and hospital lengths-of-stay within 30 days of index surgery.ResultsThere were 986 patients meeting inclusion criteria, including 893 receiving autograft and 93 receiving synthetic implant. Complication rates, including wound complication, dehiscence, and surgical site infection are similar between the 2 cohorts, though deep surgical site infections are more frequent in patients receiving implant reconstruction.Patients receiving implant reconstruction have a 4-fold higher odds of hospital readmission and a 9-fold higher odds of reoperation within 30 days after controlling for patient characteristics and surgeon specialty. Patients receiving implant reconstruction also have shorter hospital lengths-of-stay.ConclusionsEar reconstruction using autologous cartilage provides better 30-day outcomes compared to implant-based reconstruction with respect to rates of reoperation and readmission. However, these differences may be reflective more of limited surgeon experience with using synthetic implants than of the best possible outcomes achievable with each technique.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal
Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-SURGERY
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
36.40%
发文量
0
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal (CPCJ) is the premiere peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary, international journal dedicated to current research on etiology, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment in all areas pertaining to craniofacial anomalies. CPCJ reports on basic science and clinical research aimed at better elucidating the pathogenesis, pathology, and optimal methods of treatment of cleft and craniofacial anomalies. The journal strives to foster communication and cooperation among professionals from all specialties.
期刊最新文献
Microtia Reconstruction: 30-Day Outcomes for Autograft Versus Implant Reconstruction in a National Surgical Database. Nasolabial Morphological Changes Post-Khon Kaen University Presurgical Nasoalveolar Molding Therapy in Infants with Complete Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate. Prevalence and Incidence of Cleft Lip and/or Palate in Europe: A Scoping Review and Meta-Analysis. Spiritual Distress in Caregivers of Patients with Cleft and Craniofacial Anomalies-A Single-Center Cross-Sectional Study. Combining Speech Language Therapy and Clinical Psychology for Adolescents and Adults With CL/P: A Pilot Clinic in New Zealand.
×
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:481959085
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