This article is more than 5 years old. Information may no longer be current.

Oblique split and concentric carving methods of costal cartilage graft carving yielded similar warp

No significant differences were reported for the amount of warp among patients treated with the 30-degree oblique split and concentric carving methods of costal cartilage graft carving, according to recent findings.

The researchers conducted the in vitro cadaveric study to determine the amount of warping in a cohort of 74 grafts. The analysis included 41 grafts in the oblique split group and 33 in the concentric carving group.

The study was conducted during the 3-month period following December 2014.

The primary outcome measure was millimeters of warp between baseline and 1 hour, 1 month, 2 months and 3 months. This outcome was measured in the frontal and lateral planes.

For the oblique group, the mean warp in the frontal plan ranged between 1.12 mm (95% CI, 0.96-1.28) and 1.57 mm (95% CI, 0.94-2.2), while this range in the concentric group was between 1.18 mm (95% CI, 0.98-1.38) and 1.29 mm (95% CI, 0.86-1.72) over the 3-month study duration.

At 1 hour, the researchers reported that from t test, regression analysis, or panel data analysis, no statistically significant difference was observed for the frontal plane between the two interventions (0.1 mm,;95% CI, −0.38 to 0.17). This trend held through 1 month (0.13 mm; 95% CI, −0.13 to 0.4), 2 months (0.28 mm; 95% CI, −0.55 to 1.11), and 3 months (0.22 mm; 95% CI, −0.08 to 0.52).

Assessment of results for the lateral plane yielded a similar outcome, with no significant difference between the oblique split and concentric carving methods in terms of warping at 1 hour ( 0.04 mm; 95% CI, −0.49 to 0.56), 1 month (0.07 mm; 95% CI, −0.56 to 0.7), 2 months (0.4 mm; 95% CI, −0.36 to 1.17), or 3 months (0.22 mm; 95% CI, −0.7 to 1.13) as assessed by the t test.

Other results showed that clinicians excluded two grafts due to desiccation.

The researchers acknowledged, however, that the oblique split method may be easier to perform due to an increased volume of material, according to the conclusions. – by Rob Volansky

Disclosure: The researchers report no relevant financial disclosures.