| 1. |
- Grayson, Samuel, et al.
(författare)
-
Blood flow dynamics in reconstructed auricles
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Journal of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery. - 2000-656X. ; 47:4, s. 313-316
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Ear reconstruction with autologous rib cartilage is performed in stages. Restitution of blood flow between the separate stages is crucial to obtain a good result. Laser Doppler perfusion imaging (LDPI) and local temperature were measured in reconstructed and normal ears in response to indirect heating. Ten persons who had had a unilateral ear reconstruction were included in the study. At a minimum, 157 days had passed since the last operation. LDPI showed no difference in blood flow between the reconstructed ear and the normal ear, neither before nor after indirect heating. The upper part of the normal ear was slightly cooler than the corresponding part in the reconstructed ear. Indirect heating caused an increase of LDPI-values and temperatures in the upper, middle, and lower part of the ear both in the reconstructed ear and the normal one. Skin blood flow recovers after 3-stage ear reconstruction and shows normal dynamic response upon indirect heating.
|
|
| 2. |
- Öberg, Martin, et al.
(författare)
-
Threshold of tactile perception in a reconstructed auricle.
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Journal of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery. - 2000-656X. ; 45:1, s. 23-27
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Abstract There are more important outcome variables than the aesthetic when it comes to a successful result in reconstruction of the ear for microtia. The protective sensitivity, for example, is important to avoid damage to the skin covering the cartilaginous framework. We studied 39 patients with unilateral microtia and recorded their skin sensitivity more than six months after the last operation. The Semmes-Weinstein Monofilament Test (SWMT) was used to assess the threshold of protective sensitivity in three particular areas: the helix, the anthelix, and the lobule. The opposite ear served as control. A monofilament of 4.31 or less was regarded as acceptable protective sensitivity. Thirty-two patients had acceptable sensitivity in the whole ear, but the helix gave a poor result in seven patients and in one of them so did the anthelix.
|
|
