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

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q2 Dentistry
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.

小体缺损重建:国家外科数据库中自体移植物与种植体重建的30天结果。
目的比较多孔聚乙烯植入体与自体耳廓重建术在小耳或耳鸣患者耳廓重建术中的应用。设计回顾性队列研究。2016年至2022年期间,美国外科医师学会国家儿科外科质量改进项目中的医院。被诊断为小脑或神经症的儿童。介入方法:采用多孔聚乙烯植入物或自体重建。主要观察指标:伤口并发症、再入院率、再手术率和指数手术后30天内住院时间。结果986例患者符合纳入标准,其中自体种植体893例,人工种植体93例。并发症发生率,包括伤口并发症、裂开和手术部位感染,在两个队列中相似,但在接受种植体重建的患者中,深部手术部位感染更为常见。在控制患者特征和外科医生专业后,接受种植体重建的患者在30天内再次住院的几率高出4倍,再手术的几率高出9倍。接受种植体重建的患者住院时间也较短。结论自体软骨重建在30天的再手术率和再入院率方面优于种植体重建。然而,这些差异可能更多地反映了外科医生使用合成植入物的有限经验,而不是每种技术所能达到的最佳结果。
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 求助全文
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.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信