Systematic Review of Medpor Versus Autologous Ear Reconstruction

Abstract

Ear reconstruction is 1 of the most technically challenging sub-specialties of craniofacial and reconstructive plastic surgery. The reconstructive ear must not only fulfil the requirement of being aesthetically pleasing but must also have good vascularity with a low complication rate. Several ear reconstructive techniques have been developed such as the autologous ear reconstruction technique using costal cartilage and ear reconstruction with high-density porous polyethylene or Medpor (Porex Surgical, Inc, College Park, GA). Autologous ear reconstructive techniques have advantages of durability and low infection rates however are associated with poorer aesthetic outcomes such as poor projection of the ear. Medpor has advantages of a more consistent three-dimensional definition without the need to harvest costochondral cartilage and create a donor site. However, due to its alloplastic material properties, Medpor has historically been reported as having a higher rate of extrusion and infection. This is the first systematic review to compare the outcomes of both techniques. The 6 studies that were reviewed were analyzed against 3 evaluative criteria: aesthetic outcome, complication rate, and convenience of intervention. This is so a comprehensive, evidence-based decision can be made by the surgeon and patient when ear reconstruction is required. The results showed heterogeneity in data and a lack of detailed descriptions of the assessment for aesthetic outcomes and convenience, hence were inconclusive. The results however showed that there were more complications with Medpor framework with 15% of total cases resulting in either extrusion or infection compared to 2% of autologous ear reconstruction framework.