BACKGROUND: The ear is composed of elastic cartilage as its framework, and is covered with a thin layer of skin. Auricular reconstruction using autogenous cartilage in microtia patients requires delicacy. This paper reports clinical experiences related to elevation of reconstructed ear in the last 11 years. METHODS: This study was based on 68 congenital microtia patients who underwent auricular elevation in our hospital. Among these 68 patients, 47 patients were recruited. We compared the differences in the ear size, auriculocephalic angle, and conchal depth with those in the opposite ear, and the patients' satisfaction levels were investigated using a survey. RESULTS: The difference in the sizes of the two ears was less than or equal to 5 mm in 32 patients, 5 to 10 mm in 10 patients, and greater than or equal to 10 mm in 5 patients. The difference in the auriculocephalic angles of the two ears was less than or equal to 10 degrees in 14 patients, 10 to 20 degrees in 26 patients, and greater than or equal to 20 degrees in 7 patients. The difference in the conchal depths of the two ears was less than or equal to 5 mm in 24 patients, 5 to 10 mm in 19 patients, and greater than or equal to 10 mm in 4 patients. The average grade of 3.9 points out of 5 points was obtained by the patients with satisfactory surveys. CONCLUSION: We could make enough protrusion and maintain the three-dimensional shape for a long time to satisfy our patients.
BACKGROUND: The ear is composed of elastic cartilage as its framework, and is covered with a thin layer of skin. Auricular reconstruction using autogenous cartilage in microtiapatients requires delicacy. This paper reports clinical experiences related to elevation of reconstructed ear in the last 11 years. METHODS: This study was based on 68 congenital microtiapatients who underwent auricular elevation in our hospital. Among these 68 patients, 47 patients were recruited. We compared the differences in the ear size, auriculocephalic angle, and conchal depth with those in the opposite ear, and the patients' satisfaction levels were investigated using a survey. RESULTS: The difference in the sizes of the two ears was less than or equal to 5 mm in 32 patients, 5 to 10 mm in 10 patients, and greater than or equal to 10 mm in 5 patients. The difference in the auriculocephalic angles of the two ears was less than or equal to 10 degrees in 14 patients, 10 to 20 degrees in 26 patients, and greater than or equal to 20 degrees in 7 patients. The difference in the conchal depths of the two ears was less than or equal to 5 mm in 24 patients, 5 to 10 mm in 19 patients, and greater than or equal to 10 mm in 4 patients. The average grade of 3.9 points out of 5 points was obtained by the patients with satisfactory surveys. CONCLUSION: We could make enough protrusion and maintain the three-dimensional shape for a long time to satisfy our patients.