Hugh Andrew Jinwook Kim, Amirpouyan Namavarian, Urooj Khan, Ben B Levy, Hedyeh Ziai, Ben Talei, Andres M Gantous
{"title":"小儿先天性小耳症的整形技术:系统综述与元分析》。","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":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":1.1000,\"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}","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}
Reconstructive Techniques in Pediatric Congenital Microtia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
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.
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.