Medpor Alternative for Microtia Repair

Comparison of Microtia Reconstruction Outcomes Using Rib Cartilage vs Porous Polyethylene Implant

“…All patients were satisfied with the cosmetic appearance, and no major complication such as infection, extrusion, loss of implant, or flap necrosis was seen. Romo et al 9,10 continued to demonstrate good aesthetic results and reduced morbidity with polyethylene implants compared with cartilage grafts. Reinisch and Lewin 11 showed that ear reconstruction with porous polyethylene implants on 786 ears during an 18-year span had a rate of exposure of 7% and an implant fracture rate of 3% using a temporoparietal flap with underlying subgaleal fascia.…”

“…Since 2006, Romo et al, [8][9][10] Reinisch and Lewin, 11 Berghaus et al, 12 and Yang et al 13 have reported successful ear reconstruction using porous polyethylene as a substitute for rib cartilage. The polyethylene implant technique typically requires 2 or 3 stages spaced 4 months apart.…”

Current opinion on auricular reconstruction

“…The second group of techniques involves the use of preformed frameworks composed of manufactured synthetic materials such as porous high-density polyethylene (Medpor) [13] and, far less frequently, silicone [14]. These techniques generally involve a two-stage procedure and have the key advantage that a rib graft is not required, thereby avoiding donor-site morbidity.…”

Injectable and Photopolymerizable Tissue-Engineered Auricular Cartilage Using Poly(Ethylene Glycol) Dimethacrylate Copolymer Hydrogels

“…2 Alloplastic implants provide a limitless off-the-shelf supply in predetermined shapes, and require shorter operative times. 3,4 However, major concerns include increased susceptibility to infection, extrusion due to skin ischaemia, and uncertain long-term durability. The use of autologous costal cartilage graft is the most commonly used and preferred method for total external ear reconstruction, particularly in cases of congenital microtia.…”