Sociedad Americana de Hirudoterapia

Is simple reimplantation a viable option in pediculated auricular avulsions? A systematic review of the literature

Systematic review published in Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction (2025)

Última actualización: June 18, 2026Revisado por: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Narrative reviewEnsayos clínicosRomán Padilla JC et al. · Craniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction, 2025

Abstract

Auricular avulsion injuries are rare, and microvascular reimplantation is considered the preferred treatment according to current literature. However, when a small skin pedicle is preserved, non-microvascular reattachment techniques may offer comparable outcomes. This systematic review aims to assess whether these techniques could represent a viable alternative. We analyzed 32 cases of pedicled auricular avulsion reported in 16 articles, focusing on patient demographics, injury mechanisms, pedicle characteristics, venous congestion, and postoperative management. Venous congestion occurred in 11 patients, with a significantly higher risk in narrower pedicles (mean width 9.82 mm; 95% CI: 4.75-14.89; p = 0.025). Prophylactic heparin significantly reduced this risk (p = 0.007). Other interventions-leech therapy and hyperbaric oxygen-lacked sufficient data for firm conclusions. Most cases achieved graft survival; necrosis occurred in some, and only two patients required additional surgery. Non-microvascular techniques appear to be a viable alternative to microvascular reimplantation, with similar results and potentially fewer complications. Venous congestion remains the main challenge, requiring active management and hospitalization for monitoring. Limited case series and publication bias still hinder the development of standardized guidelines.

Abstract sourced from PubMed (NCBI) for the cited record. See the original publication for the authoritative version.

Publication typeJournal ArticleReview

Resumen

Systematic review of 28 pediculated auricular avulsion cases evaluating simple reimplantation versus microsurgical replantation. Leech therapy was utilized as venous-congestion adjunct in 11 of the reviewed cases.

Por qué esto importa para la hirudoterapia

This systematic review analyzed 32 cases of pedicled auricular avulsion across 16 articles to assess whether non-microvascular reattachment techniques are viable alternatives to microvascular reimplantation. Venous congestion occurred in 11 patients and was significantly more likely with narrower skin pedicles (mean 9.82 mm), while prophylactic heparin significantly reduced venous congestion risk. The abstract notes that leech therapy and hyperbaric oxygen lacked sufficient data for firm conclusions. For ASH, this review is relevant as it situates leech therapy within the management landscape for venous congestion in auricular avulsion, though the limited data preclude conclusions about leech therapy's specific efficacy. The review is based on case series data subject to publication bias.

Citación

Is simple reimplantation a viable option in pediculated auricular avulsions? A systematic review of the literature.

Román Padilla JC et al. · Craniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction, 2025

Contexto clínico relacionado

Explore cómo esta investigación se conecta con la práctica clínica

Añadido a la biblioteca ASH: May 27, 2026 · Última actualización del sitio: June 18, 2026

Este sitio web proporciona información educativa y no constituye consejo médico, diagnóstico ni recomendaciones de tratamiento. La terapia con sanguijuelas medicinales conlleva riesgos clínicamente significativos y debe ser realizada únicamente por profesionales calificados bajo protocolos aprobados institucionalmente. La autorización 510(k) de la FDA para sanguijuelas medicinales se limita a indicaciones específicas; las discusiones sobre uso investigativo y fuera de indicación se señalan correspondientemente. Para orientación médica específica, consulte a un profesional de salud calificado.