Comparison of auricle reconstruction with expanded flaps and auricle reconstruction with non-expanded flaps in patients with microtia: A meta-analysis.

Abstract

We conducted this meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of these two surgical methods by comparing the incidence of major evaluation indicators. The databases such as PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, and VIP information databases were searched. The satisfaction rate of patients with auricle reconstruction using expanded flaps was 86.5%, and the satisfaction rate of patients with auricle reconstruction using non-expanded flaps was 87.9%. The incidence of postoperative hematoma was 3.2% in patients with auricle reconstruction using expanded flaps and 18.9% in patients with auricle reconstruction using non-expanded flaps. The incidence of postoperative skin necrosis was 2.2% in patients with auricle reconstruction using expanded flaps and 4.1% in patients with auricle reconstruction using non-expanded flaps. The incidence of postoperative incision infection was 3.1% in patients with auricle reconstruction using expanded flaps and 0.9% in patients with auricle reconstruction using non-expanded flaps. The incidence of cartilage framework exposure was 2.2% in patients with auricle reconstruction using expanded flaps and 1.9% in patients with auricle reconstruction using non-expanded flaps. The incidence of postoperative scar hyperplasia was 3.8% in patients with auricle reconstruction using expanded flaps and 3% in patients with auricle reconstruction using non-expanded flaps. The publication bias of included literature was evaluated by Egger test. There was no publication bias in this Meta-analysis (P > .05). The auricle reconstruction using non-expanded flaps is dominant in four of the six evaluation indexes. Therefore, we believe that the auricle reconstruction using non-expanded flaps has better therapeutic effect in patients with microtia. Due to the limitations of this meta-analysis, the conclusions of this meta-analysis still need to be further verified.