Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Clinical results and health-related quality of life in otoplasty patients using cartilage resection and suturing methods

  • Otology
  • Published:
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this study, we evaluated clinical results and health-related quality of life in our otoplasty patients in whom we used cartilage resection method (CRM) and suturing method (SM). A total of 132 ears of 77 patients (36 males, 41 females; mean age 14.6 ± 6.4) between January 2006 and February 2013 were included in this study. Patients were divided into two groups according to the type of surgery performed: Group 1 was the cartilage resection group (CRG) and Group 2 was the suturing group (SG). CRM was performed on 64 ears of 37 patients (unilateral in 10 cases and bilateral in 27 cases), and SM was performed on 68 ears of 40 patients (unilateral in 12 cases and bilateral in 28 cases). The parameters of the groups, including operation time, measurements of the auriculocephalic distances, complication rates, postoperative satisfaction rates, and health-related quality of life were compared. Mean operation time was 53.7 ± 7.8 min in the CRG and 44.9 ± 4.2 min in the SG (P ≤ 0.05). Mean postoperative auriculocephalic measurements were similar in both groups. The complications were more frequent in the CRG (10/37 patients, 27.02 %) than in the SG (3/40 patients, 7.54 %) with statistically significant difference (P < 0.05). Three months after the surgery, visual analog scale increased from 25 (preoperatively) to 70 in the CRG and from 30 to 90 in the SG, with a statistically significant difference (P < 0.05). Patients’ health-related quality of life showed a statistically significant increase after the operation in both groups (P < 0.05). CRM and SM are effective treatment methods with high success rates for patients with prominent ears. In the selected cases, SM seems to represent a better option for otoplasty than CRM because clinical results, cosmetic outcomes, patient satisfaction, and health-related quality of life scores were better than CRM.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Dhillon RS, East CA (2006) Ear, nose and throat, 2nd edn. Churchill Livingstone- Elsevier, Edinburgh, pp 24–25

    Google Scholar 

  2. Adamson PA, Strecker HD (1995) Otoplasty techniques. Facial Plast Surg 11:284–300

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Romo T 3rd, Sclafani AP, Shapiro AL (1994) Otoplasty using the postauricular skin flap technique. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 120:1146–1150

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Braun T, Hainzinger T, Stelter K et al (2010) Health-related quality of life, patient benefit, and clinical outcome after otoplasty using suture techniques in 62 children and adults. Plast Reconstr Surg 126:2115–2124

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Adamson PA, McGraw BL, Tropper GJ (1991) Otoplasty: critical review of clinical results. Laryngoscope 101:883–888

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Dieffenbach JF (1848) Die ohrbildung otoplastik. Die operative chirugie. FA. Brockhaus, Leipzig, pp 395–397

  7. Gatehouse S (1998) The Glasgow health status questionnaires manual. MRC Institute of Hearing Research, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow

    Google Scholar 

  8. Robinson K, Gatehouse S, Browning GG (1996) Measuring patient benefit from otorhinolaryngological surgery and therapy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 105:415–422

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kubba H, Swan IR, Gatehouse S (2004) The Glasgow children’s benefit inventory: a new instrument for assessing health-related benefit after an intervention. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 113:980–986

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Schwentner I, Schwentner C, Schmutzhard J et al (2007) Validation of the German Glasgow children’s benefit inventory. J Eval Clin Pract 13:942–946

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Irkoren S, Kucukkaya D, Sivrioglu N, Ozkan HS (2013) Using bilaterally fascioperichondrial flaps with a distal and a proximal base combined with conventional otoplasty. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. doi:10.1007/s00405-013-2552-7

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Cingi C (2007) Otoplasti. In: Çelik O (ed) Ear nose throat diseases and head and neck surgery, 2nd edn. Asya Medical Bookshop, Ankara, pp 351–364

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ozturan O, Dogan R, Eren SB, Aksoy F, Veyseller B (2013) Percutaneous adjustable closed otoplasty for prominent ear deformity. J Craniofac Surg 24:398–404

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Petersson RS, Friedman O (2008) Current trends in otoplasty. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 16:352–358

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Mustardé JC (1967) The treatment of prominent ears by buried mattress sutures: a ten-year survey. Plast Reconstr Surg 39:382–386

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Adamson PA, Litner JA (2007) Otoplasty technique. Otolaryngol Clin N Am 40:305–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Jeffery SL (1999) Complications following correction of prominent ears: an audit review of 122 cases. Br J Plast Surg 52:588–590

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Calder JC, Naasan A (1994) Morbidity of otoplasty: a review of 562 consecutive cases. Br J Plast Surg 47:170–174

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Schaverien MV, Al-Busaidi S, Stewart KJ (2010) Long-term results of posterior suturing with postauricular fascial flap otoplasty. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 63:1447–1451

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Tan KH (1986) Long-term survey of prominent ear surgery: a comparison of two methods. Br J Plast Surg 39:270–273

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Weerda H, Siegert R (1994) Complications in otoplastic surgery and their treatment. Facial Plast Surg 10:287–297

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Weerda H (2007) Surgery of the auricle: tumors–trauma–defects–abnormalities, 1st edn. Thieme, Stuttgart, p 153

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ellis DAF, Keohane JD (1992) A simplified approach to otoplasty. J Otolaryngol 21:66–69

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Crysdale WS, Messner AH (1994) Otoplasty for the school-aged child. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2:521–525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Messner AH, Crysdale WS (1996) Otoplasty: clinical protocol and long-term results. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 122:773–777

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Strychowsky JE, Moitri M, Gupta MK, Sommer DD (2013) Incisionless otoplasty: a retrospective review and outcomes analysis. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2013.04.014

  27. Stenström SJ (1963) A “natural” technique for correction of congenitally prominent ears. Plast Reconstr Surg 32:509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Cincik H, Erkul E, Çekin E et al (2007) Two year otoplasty experience and results. KBB-Forum 6:1–5

    Google Scholar 

  29. Limandjaja GC, Breugem CC, Molen ABMV, Kon M (2009) Complications of otoplasty: a literature review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 62:19–27

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Richards SD, Jebreel A, Capper R (2005) Otoplasty: a review of the surgical technique. Clin Otolaryngol 30:2–8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Szychta P, Stewart KJ (2012) Comparison of cartilage scoring and cartilage sparing techniques in unilateral otoplasty: a 10-year experience. Ann Plast Surg. doi:10.1097/SAP.0b013e3182503c38

  32. Bermueller C, Kirsche H, Sebert A, Rotter N (2012) Quality of life and patients’ satisfaction after otoplasty. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 269:2423–2431

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Schwentner I, Schmutzhard J, Deibl M et al (2006) Health related quality of life outcome of adult patients after otoplasty. J Craniofac Surg 17:629–635

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, İnönü University School of Medicine, Malatya, Turkey

    Yuksel Toplu

  2. Otorhinolaryngology Clinic, Malatya State Hospital, Malatya, Turkey

    Emrah Sapmaz

  3. Department of Plastic Surgery, İnönü University School of Medicine, Malatya, Turkey

    Cemal Firat

  4. Malatya State Hospital Infectious Diseases Clinic, Malatya, Turkey

    Sibel Altunisik Toplu

Authors
  1. Yuksel Toplu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Emrah Sapmaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cemal Firat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sibel Altunisik Toplu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yuksel Toplu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Toplu, Y., Sapmaz, E., Firat, C. et al. Clinical results and health-related quality of life in otoplasty patients using cartilage resection and suturing methods. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 271, 3147–3153 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-013-2799-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-013-2799-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation