Advertisement

Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

, Volume 27, Issue 6, pp 462–465 | Cite as

Otoplasty: A Comparison of Techniques for Antihelical Defects Treatment

  • Pietro PanettiereEmail author
  • Lucio Marchetti
  • Danilo Accorsi
  • Giovanni-Alberto Del Gaudio
Article

Abstract

Background

Prominauris, the most common malformative defect of the external ear, is dependent on a combination of elementary defects mainly affecting the antihelix and the concha. Transection versus cartilage weakening results in antihelix treatment are discussed.

Methods

In this study, 104 ears with antihelical defects were treated in 63 consecutive patients: the 33 patients (53 ears) in group A, received a transection-based treatment, whereas the 30 patients (51 ears) in group B, underwent cartilage weakening and suture. All the patients were treated using a posterior access. The aesthetic results were evaluated by an independent well-trained plastic surgeon.

Results

No differences were found in correction degree and stability between the two methods, but cartilage weakening techniques provided a smoother and more natural curvature

Conclusions

Cartilage weakening techniques can lead to better aesthetic results, primarily because of a softer and more natural ear curvature.

Keywords

Otoplasty Cartilage Antihelix 

References

  1. 1.
    Adamson, PA, McGraw, BL, Tropper, GJ 1991Otoplasty: critical review of clinical results.Laryngoscope101883888PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Calder, JC, Naasan, A 1994Morbidity of otoplasty: a review of 562 consecutive cases.Br J Plast Surg47170174PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Caouette-Laberge, L, Guay, N, Bortoluzzi, P, Belleville, C 2000Otoplasty: anterior scoring technique and results in 500 cases.Plast Reconstr Surg105504515PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Connolly, A, Bartley, J 1998“External” Mustarde suture technique in otoplasty.Clin Otolaryngol239799CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dechamboux, J, Sadek, H, Raphael, B 2000Oreilles proéminentes: une technique simple, sous anesthésie locale, en ambulatoire.Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac101319324PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Torre, J, Tenenhaus, M, Douglas, BK, Swinburne, JK 1998A simplified technique of otoplasty: the temporary Kaye suture.Ann Plast Surg419496PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ely, JF 1988Small incision otoplasty for prominent ears.Aesthetic Plast Surg126369PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Epstein, JS, Kabaker, SS, Swerdloff, J 1999The “electric” otoplasty.Arch Facial Plast Surg1204207CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fritsch, MH 1995Incisionless otoplasty.Laryngoscope105111Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Furnas, DW 2002Otoplasty for prominent ears.Clin Plast Surg29273288PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Graham, KE, Gault, DT 1997Endoscopic assisted otoplasty: a preliminary report.Br J Plast Surg504757PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hagerty, TA, Barone, EJ, Cohen, IK 1998Endoscopic otoplasty in the rabbit model: effect of mechanical abrasion on ear cartilage deformation.Plast Reconstr Surg101487493PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Horlock, N, Misra, A, Gault, DT 2001The postauricular fascial flap as an adjunct to Mustarde and Furnas type otoplasty.Plast Reconstr Surg10814871490CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Johnson, PE 1994Otoplasty: shaping the antihelix.Aesthetic Plast Surg187174PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Koch, A, Andes, C, Federspil, P 1991L’otoplastie: résultats avec la méthode de Mustarde modifiée.Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord)112249253Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Maniglia, AJ, Maniglia, JJ, Witten, BR 1977Otoplasty: an eclectic technique.Laryngoscope8713591368PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nordzell, B 2000Open otoplasty.Plast Reconstr Surg10614661472PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Peled, IJ 1995Knifeless otoplasty: how simple can it be?Aesthetic Plast Surg19253255PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Peled, IJ 2000Endoscopic assisted otoplasty: a preliminary report.Br J Plast Surg53541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Perez-Barrero, P, Rodrigo, J, Elena, E, Marques, MD 2001Auto-otoplasty using cyanoacrylate.Plast Reconstr Surg10821572158CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pilz, S, Hintringer, T, Bauer, M 1995Otoplasty using a spherical metal head dermabrador to form a retroauricular furrow: five-year results.Aesthetic Plast Surg198391PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stark, H 1991Otoplastik mit dem CO2 laser.Laryngorhinootologie70652PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stenstrom, SJ 1966A Simple operation for prominent ears.Acta Otolaryngol27393Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zaoli, G 1997Technical devices in otoplasty to obtain a natural appearance.Facial Plast Surg13197205PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pietro Panettiere
    • 1
    Email author
  • Lucio Marchetti
    • 2
  • Danilo Accorsi
    • 2
  • Giovanni-Alberto Del Gaudio
    • 2
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Discipline Chirurgiche Rianimatorie e dei TrapiantiUniversità degli Studi di BolognaBolognaItaly
  2. 2.Ospedale Policlinico S. Orsola-MalpighiBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations