Literature DB >> 17046626

Comparison of cartilage scoring and cartilage sparing otoplasty--A study of 203 cases.

A Mandal1, H Bahia, T Ahmad, K J Stewart.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: The Edinburgh experience of different methods of otoplasty techniques in 203 patients (406 ears) over a five-year period is reviewed.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The patients were divided into three groups - Group A (anterior cartilage scoring), Group B (cartilage sparing in the fashion of posterior suturing) and Group C (posterior suturing refined with posterior fascial flap). Demographic details, operation technique, operation time, grade of the surgeon, suture materials, early and late complications, recurrence and revision rates, patients' and physicians' comments at the follow-up clinic were retrieved from the case notes. The pre- and the post-operative photographs were assessed by a blinded lay observer and a physician and scored on a visual analogue scale. Median follow-up was 11 months.
RESULTS: The recurrence rate was 11.0%, 8.0% and 4.8% in Groups A, B and C, respectively (p = 0.0214). Complications were more common in Group A (8.8%) and Group B (7.9%) compared to Group C (1.2%) (p = 0.0208). The cosmetic result was judged best in Group C. In our experience, cartilage-sparing otoplasty refined with the post-auricular fascial flap results in significantly reduced complication rate and improved aesthetic outcome.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17046626     DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2006.01.055

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg        ISSN: 1748-6815            Impact factor:   2.740


  9 in total

1.  [Correction of auricle deformities after failed otoplasty].

Authors:  A Berghaus
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 1.284

2.  [Otoplasty and quality of life].

Authors:  T Braun; A Berghaus
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 1.284

3.  Anterior versus Posterior Scoring of Cartilage in Otoplasty: A Retrospective Patient-related Outcome Measurement Study.

Authors:  Johannes A Smit; Dominique W Coenen; Eline A van Amerongen; P Quinten Ruhé; Corstiaan C Breugem
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2020-06-09

4.  Outcomes and Complications of the Mustardé Otoplasty: A "Good-Fast-Cheap" Technique for the Prominent Ear Deformity.

Authors:  Matthew L Boroditsky; Aaron C Van Slyke; Jugpal S Arneja
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2020-09-24

5.  Treatment of Prominent Ears with an Implantable Clip System: A Pilot Study.

Authors:  Norbert V Kang; Ryan L Kerstein
Journal:  Aesthet Surg J       Date:  2015-12-15       Impact factor: 4.283

Review 6.  Developmental disorders of the ear in children and adolescents: conservative and surgical treatment options.

Authors:  Thomas Braun; John Martin Hempel; Alexander Berghaus
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2014-02-07       Impact factor: 5.594

7.  Comparison of Transcutaneous Fixation-Assisted Method with Classical Needle-Assisted Method in Prominent Ear Surgery.

Authors:  Ilker Uyar; Ersin Aksam; Can Kopal; Emin Kapı
Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg       Date:  2022-03-24       Impact factor: 2.326

8.  Earfold Implantable Clip System for Correction of Prominent Ears: Analysis of Safety in 403 Patients.

Authors:  Norbert V Kang; Nilesh Sojitra; Sinisa Glumicic; Jacobus A Vlok; Greg O'Toole; S Alam Hannan; Walid Sabbagh
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2018-01-12

Review 9.  Earfold: A New Technique for Correction of the Shape of the Antihelix.

Authors:  Norbert V Kang; Walid Sabbagh; Greg O'Toole; Michael Silberberg
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2018-04-15       Impact factor: 3.325

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.