Literature DB >> 26810363

Comparison of the result of consolidative technique otoplasty and incisionless otoplasty in the repairs of prominent ears.

Metin Temel1, Ş Şamil Kahraman2, Özge Berber2, Cengiz Çevik2, Ertap Akoğlu2.   

Abstract

We aimed to compare the long-term results of complications of consolidative technique otoplasty (CTO) and incisionless otoplasty (IO). The study consists of 156 patients who were operated between 2006 and 2015. According to surgical techniques, these patients were divided into two groups as IO group and CTO group. The distance between the head and the ear was assessed by measuring the four points preoperatively and postoperatively (SUP: most superior helical point, SCA: superior conchal attachment, ICA: inferior conchal attachment, and lobule). Early and late postoperative complications, operative time were recorded. 128 ears in IO group, 163 ears in CTO group were prominent. When postoperative SUP, SCA, ICA, lobule values for right and left ears in both groups were statistically evaluated, it was found that CTO technique has led to significantly greater improvement compared to the IO technique (p < 0.001). The success rate in IO technique and CTO technique was 72 and 96 %, respectively. Early complications were similar in both groups. The late period complication determined much more frequently was seen in the IO group. Concerning operative time, it was identified as significantly lower in the IO group (p < 0.001). The early-term outcomes of both techniques were similar; however, the complication rates due to suture material and needed for revision in IO technique were higher whereas CTO technique was more permanent with lower complication risks.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Combination of surgical technique; Incisionless otoplasty technique; Otoplasty; Prominent ear

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26810363     DOI: 10.1007/s00405-016-3898-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol        ISSN: 0937-4477            Impact factor:   2.503


  37 in total

1.  Postauricular fascial flap and suture otoplasty: a prospective outcome study of 227 patients.

Authors:  Manish Sinha; Bruce Richard
Journal:  J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg       Date:  2011-11-09       Impact factor: 2.740

2.  Complications following correction of prominent ears: an audit review of 122 cases.

Authors:  S L Jeffery
Journal:  Br J Plast Surg       Date:  1999-10

Review 3.  [Otoplastic techniques for the correction of protruding ears].

Authors:  W Heppt; Y Trautmann
Journal:  HNO       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 1.284

4.  Correction of prominent ears by conchamastoid sutures.

Authors:  D W Furnas
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  1968-09       Impact factor: 4.730

5.  Goals in otoplasty for protruding ears.

Authors:  A J McDowell
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  1968-01       Impact factor: 4.730

6.  [Protruding ears: the indications for surgical treatment].

Authors:  P Campobasso; G Belloli
Journal:  Pediatr Med Chir       Date:  1993 Mar-Apr

7.  Otoplasty.

Authors:  Andrew C Campbell
Journal:  Facial Plast Surg       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 1.446

8.  Otoplasty. Clinical protocol and long-term results.

Authors:  A H Messner; W S Crysdale
Journal:  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  1996-07

9.  Otoplasty: critical review of clinical results.

Authors:  P A Adamson; B L McGraw; G J Tropper
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  1991-08       Impact factor: 3.325

10.  Otoplasty using the postauricular skin flap technique.

Authors:  T Romo; A P Sclafani; A L Shapiro
Journal:  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  1994-10
View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Nonsurgical Treatment for Congenital Auricular Deformities: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Huanhuan Wu; Zehao Niu; Guo Li; Yan Li; Bingqing Wang; Jing Qian; Yue Wang; Hanyi Jiang; Youbai Chen; Yan Han
Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg       Date:  2021-07-06       Impact factor: 2.326

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.