M P van Wijk1, J A Kummer, M Kon. 1. Department of Plastic Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands. M.P.vanWijk@umcutrecht.nl
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The popularity of high ear piercing has led to an increased incidence of perichondritis. Damage to the relatively avascular cartilage will make the ear prone to infection. The literature suggests that a piercing gun, mainly used by jewellers to pierce the lobule, may give excessive cartilaginous damage. Therefore some authors favour the piercing needle, as used in piercing studios. But until now, no comparative histological studies have been performed. PURPOSE OF STUDY: To evaluate the extent of damage to ear cartilage using different piercing techniques. METHODS: Twenty-two fresh human cadaver ears were pierced using two spring loaded piercing guns (Caflon and Blomdahl), one hand force system (Studex) and a piercing needle (16G i.v. catheter). Extent of damage to the perichondrium and cartilage was quantified using a transverse section along the pin tract and compared between the different methods. RESULTS: The pattern of injury was similar in all techniques, showing perichondrium stripped from the cartilage around the pin tract, with most damage present on the exit site (mean length of 0.43 mm). Cartilage fractures and loose fragments were present over a mean length of 0.21 mm. No significant difference in the amount of injury between the different techniques was observed. CONCLUSIONS: In contradiction with assumptions in the literature, all piercing methods give the same extent of damage to cartilage and perichondrium. Each method is expected to have the same risk for perichondritis, thus in the prevention of post-piercing perichondritis focus should be on other factors such as hygiene and after-care.
BACKGROUND: The popularity of high ear piercing has led to an increased incidence of perichondritis. Damage to the relatively avascular cartilage will make the ear prone to infection. The literature suggests that a piercing gun, mainly used by jewellers to pierce the lobule, may give excessive cartilaginous damage. Therefore some authors favour the piercing needle, as used in piercing studios. But until now, no comparative histological studies have been performed. PURPOSE OF STUDY: To evaluate the extent of damage to ear cartilage using different piercing techniques. METHODS: Twenty-two fresh human cadaver ears were pierced using two spring loaded piercing guns (Caflon and Blomdahl), one hand force system (Studex) and a piercing needle (16G i.v. catheter). Extent of damage to the perichondrium and cartilage was quantified using a transverse section along the pin tract and compared between the different methods. RESULTS: The pattern of injury was similar in all techniques, showing perichondrium stripped from the cartilage around the pin tract, with most damage present on the exit site (mean length of 0.43 mm). Cartilage fractures and loose fragments were present over a mean length of 0.21 mm. No significant difference in the amount of injury between the different techniques was observed. CONCLUSIONS: In contradiction with assumptions in the literature, all piercing methods give the same extent of damage to cartilage and perichondrium. Each method is expected to have the same risk for perichondritis, thus in the prevention of post-piercing perichondritis focus should be on other factors such as hygiene and after-care.