Auricle reconstruction with autologous costal cartilage versus polyethylene implants in microtia patients: a meta-analysis.

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).

CONCLUSION

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.