BACKGROUND: Auricle reconstruction is among the most challenging procedures in plastic and reconstructive surgery, and the choice of framework material is a critical decision for both surgeons and patients. This meta-analysis compared the outcomes of autologous auricle reconstruction using costal cartilage with those of alloplastic reconstruction using porous polyethylene implants.
METHODS: A literature review was conducted using the PubMed and Embase databases to retrieve articles published between January 2000 and June 2024. The outcomes analyzed included postoperative complications such as framework exposure, infection, skin necrosis, hematoma, and hypertrophic scars, as well as patient satisfaction. The proportions of reconstructive outcomes from each selected study were statistically analyzed using the \"metaprop\" function in R software.
RESULTS: Fourteen articles met our inclusion criteria. The group undergoing polyethylene implant reconstruction exhibited higher rates of framework exposure, infection, and skin necrosis, whereas the autologous reconstruction group experienced higher rates of hematoma and hypertrophic scars. Of all the complications, framework exposure was the only one to show a statistically significant difference between the two groups (p < 0.0001). In terms of patient satisfaction, those who underwent autologous cartilage reconstruction reported a higher rate of satisfaction, although this difference did not reach statistical significance in the meta-analysis (p = 0.076).
CONCLUSIONS: There is no statistically significant difference in postoperative complications such as infection, hematoma, skin necrosis, and hypertrophic scars between auricle reconstructions using autologous costal cartilage and those using polyethylene implants. However, reconstructions with polyethylene implants show a significantly higher rate of framework exposure.

Microtia reconstruction is a complex procedure performed by the facial plastic and reconstructive surgeon and requires an expert understanding of the three-dimensional structure of the ear. This article provides an overview of the evolution of microtia reconstruction through history. Techniques pioneered by microtia surgeons Drs. Radford Tanzer, Burt Brent, Satoru Nagata, and Françoise Firmin will be described along with an additional excerpt on the utilization of porous polyethylene (Medpor; Stryker, USA). The objective for the reader is to be able to summarize approaches of each major reconstructive technique, compare the differences in techniques, and gain an understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of each approach.

UNASSIGNED: \"Frozen Eye\" is a very uncommon sequel after treatment of orbital blowout fractures requiring implant placement.
UNASSIGNED: The implant may faultily impinge on the ocular and extra-ocular muscle(s), causing the abnormality in the movement of the eye.
UNASSIGNED: We present a 56-year-old male whose ocular implant impinged on muscle, causing \"frozen eye\" and had an infected implant.
UNASSIGNED: The same was removed and surgically corrected. The manuscript describes the details and discusses the possible mechanism that led to the \"Frozen Eye\".

BACKGROUND: Auricular reconstruction for microtia is most frequently performed using autologous costal cartilage (ACC) or porous polyethylene (PPE) implants. Short-term results are generally promising, but long-term results remain unclear. Long-term outcomes were explored in this systematic review, and minimal reporting criteria were suggested for future original data studies.
METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception through October 14, 2020. Articles on auricular reconstruction in patients with microtia using ACC or PPE were included if postsurgical follow-up was at least 1 year. Outcome reporting was split into separate publications, and results on complications were reported previously. This publication focused on long-term aesthetic, patient-reported, and sensitivity outcomes.
RESULTS: Forty-one publications reported on these outcomes. Both materials led to aesthetically pleasing results and high rates of patient satisfaction. ACC frameworks grew similarly to contralateral ears, and the anterior surface of auricles regained sensitivity. Furthermore, postoperative health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes were generally good. Data synthesis was limited due to considerable variability between studies and poor study quality. No conclusions could be drawn on the superiority of either method due to the lack of comparative analyses.
CONCLUSIONS: Future studies should minimally report (1) surgical efficacy measured using the tool provided in the UK Care Standards for the Management of Patients with Microtia and Atresia; (2) complications including framework extrusion or exposure, graft loss, framework resorption, wire exposure and scalp/auricular scar complications and (3) HRQoL before and after treatment using the EAR-Q patient-reported outcome measure (PROM).

BACKGROUND: Microtia is a rare disorder characterized by malformation or even complete absence of the auricle. Reconstruction is often performed using autologous costal cartilage (ACC) or porous polyethylene implants (PPE). However, the long-term outcomes of both methods are unclear.
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to analyze long-term complications and suggest minimal reporting criteria for future original data studies.
METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception through October 14, 2020. Articles on auricular reconstruction in patients with microtia using ACC or PPE were included provided that the follow-up period was at least one year. This publication focused on long-term complications reported in patients with a postoperative follow-up period of at least one year.
RESULTS: Twenty-nine publications reported on complications during long-term follow-up. Overall long-term complication rates were not reported. The incidence of individual complications during long-term follow-up was less than 10% after ACC reconstruction and less than 15% in PPE reconstruction. Framework resorption and wire exposure were reported even after an extended follow-up of more than five years after ACC reconstruction, while reports on the extended long-term results of PPE reconstruction are limited. Data synthesis was limited due to heterogeneity and poor study quality.
CONCLUSIONS: Future studies should report on long-term complications including framework exposure or extrusion, graft loss, framework resorption, wire exposure and scalp and auricular scar complications. We recommend a surgical follow-up of at least five years.

UNASSIGNED: Treating orbital injuries is interesting and difficult in the facial trauma. The balance in facial proportions and also the facial esthetics are required to achieve an anatomical harmony.
UNASSIGNED: To compare the functional results of individual reconstruction of orbital floor using either titanium mesh or Medpor in terms of various factors.
UNASSIGNED: There were two study groups including eight subjects with orbital floor fracture, namely A (Medpor) and B (titanium mesh). Various parameters were analyzed postoperatively at intervals of 1 week, 3 week, 6th week, and 3 months after the surgery.
UNASSIGNED: Comparison of the different time points with respect to pain scores in the two study groups by Wilcoxon matched pairs test was done. P value was significant in the study Group A with P = 0.0431* and was insignificant in the study Group B with P = 0.1088.
UNASSIGNED: All three cases of titanium mesh in orbital floor reconstruction had signs of infection, tenderness, and radiographic proof after 1 week in two subjects and 3 weeks in one patient. Pain was seen in all eight patients 1 week postoperatively.
UNASSIGNED: Although orbital reconstruction is a technique sensitive procedure both Medpore and Titanium mesh functions.

暂无摘要。

Reconstruction of large cavities in the skull and facial regions is important not only to restore health but also for the correction of facial distortions. Every visible deformity in the facial region of the patient affects their mental wellness and perception by society, entailing both, deterioration of health, but also a decrease in the performance in society, which translates into its productivity. With the progressive degradation of the natural environment, cancer, in the coming years, will be on the leading causes of morbidity and mortality. The review focuses on two main aspects: (i) the causes of injuries leading to the necessity of removal of orbital cavities occupied by the tumor and then their reconstruction, with the focus on the anatomical structure of the orbital cavity, (ii) the materials used to reconstruct the orbital cavities and analyze their advantages and disadvantages. The manuscript also underlines the not yet fully met challenges in the area of facial- and craniofacial reconstruction in people affected by cancer.

UNASSIGNED: Our aim was to evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes after implantation of the silicone-plate (model FP7) and porous polyethylene-plate (model M4) Ahmed Glaucoma Valves.
UNASSIGNED: This was a prospective, multicenter, comparative series. A total of 52 eyes (52 patients) were treated with either the silicone or porous plate Ahmed Glaucoma Valve implant. Hypertensive phase was defined as intraocular pressure >21 mmHg during the first 3 months postoperatively. Success was defined as 5 mmHg ≤intraocular pressure ≤21 mmHg (with or without additional glaucoma medications), without loss of light perception and without additional glaucoma procedures. Patients were monitored for 1 year after surgery.
UNASSIGNED: The pre-operative intraocular pressure was 29.9 ± 6.6 mmHg and 33.8 ± 10.5 in the silicone-plate and porous-plate groups, respectively (P = 0.118). At 12 months after surgery, the mean intraocular pressure was 13.6 ± 4.7 mmHg in the silicone-plate group and 17.9 ± 10.9 mmHg in the porous-plate group (P = 0.141). The mean number of glaucoma medications at 12 months was 1.64 ± 1.40 mmHg and 1.89 ± 1.54 mmHg in the silicone- and porous-plate groups, respectively (P = 0.605). Hypertensive phase was not significantly different in the two groups (50.0% of the silicone-plate and 57.7% of the porous-plate groups, P = 0.578). At 12 months after surgery, the percent success for the silicone-plate and porous-plate groups was 88.5% and 53.8%, respectively (P = 0.005). Complications were similar in the two groups.
UNASSIGNED: The porous-plate Ahmed Glaucoma Valve showed similar average intraocular pressure reduction compared with the silicone-plate model. At 12 months after surgery, there was a significantly lower success rate in the porous-plate compared with the silicone-plate group.

Alloplastic malar onlays have been used by surgeons to correct or enhance the midfacial skeleton for over 40 years. Case series have shown respectable results using different alloplastic materials in various maxillofacial subsites. However, these articles include small numbers of patients with limited follow up. We present a literature review specifically concentrating on porous polyethylene (Medpor, Stryker) and polyethyl ether ketone (PEEK) malar onlays. We illustrate the technique used by a single oral and maxillofacial surgeon for placement of 119 implants in 61 patients over a 14-year period, and show the results of this work with long-term follow up. A complication rate of 2.5% in this cohort was reported, with follow up of three years, demonstrating that this technique for midfacial correction is successful in both the short and the long term.