Microtia reconstruction: does the cartilage framework grow?

The use of free rib cartilage ear frameworks in unilateral microtia reconstruction has prompted much discussion about their potential for growth. The senior author has reconstructed ear frameworks in 132 microtia patients, most of whom were under 3 years of age when surgery was initiated. Of this group, 29 were assessed for ear growth through comparison of the lead-plate model of the original normal ear to the normal ear growth and the reconstructed ear framework after a period of at least 2 years. Similarly, 14 reconstructed ears were compared to 14 normal ears at least 2 years after reconstruction. The perimeters of tracings made from the original lead plates and of tracings of normal and reconstructed ears were determined by image analysis techniques. The results demonstrated no significant difference in growth between normal ears and reconstructed ear frameworks after an interval of at least 2.5 years. Therefore, the reconstructed ear is growing at a rate similar to that of the normal ear.     

Upper abdominal wall defects: immediate or staged reconstruction?

One-stage reconstruction of the central and lower abdominal wall with vascularized tissue has been well described. A few cases of one-stage reconstruction of the upper abdomen also are reported. We attempted this procedure in six of seven patients who had large abdominal wall defects that reached the xiphoid process. In three patients, the intraabdominal parts of the procedures went well and the reconstructive goals were accomplished. In three other patients, prolonged and difficult intraabdominal operations resulted in considerable intestinal dilatation that compromised the reconstruction. We therefore recommend being prepared to abort a planned immediate abdominal wall reconstruction following a difficult intraabdominal operation. The abdomen should be temporarily closed with skin flaps, skin grafts, or absorbable mesh, and definitive reconstruction of the fascia should be done at a later operation.     

Biomass: Is it a useful tool in paleocommunity reconstruction?

In general, more of the biomass of the community is preserved than is its numerical abundance. Thus, the paleontologist, on the average, works with more of the community when biomass is used. Community characteristics such as taxon dominance and habitat proportions are at least as accurately derived from biomass as numerical abundance. The use of biomass is clearly more appropriate in describing energy flow and trophic proportions. Whenever possible, biomass should be used as a complement to numerical abundance in future paleoecologic reconstructions.