Prominent Lobule Correction in Otoplasty: With Step-by-Step Description of the “Y to V Setback” Technique

  • Yigit Ozer TiftikciogluEmail author
  • Ufuk Bilkay


One of the most common long-term complications of the operation is an unnatural “operated” look of the ear. Our current aim in otoplasty must be further refinement of the surgical technique in order to address finer details such as Stahl’s ear, prominent Darwin’s tubercle, and lobule prominence. Some surgeons prefer skin excisions and others suggest correction of cartilage framework for correction of the lobule deformity. The authors preferred technique is Y to V setback of the lobule. It may be used as the last step of a routine otoplasty operation or for correction of isolated or secondary prominent lobule deformities. The technique is described.


Skin Excision Deep Dissection Triangular Flap Wedge Excision Shaped Incision 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Supplementary material

(AVI 164,514 KB)


  1. 1.
    Siegert R. Correction of the lobule. Facial Plast Surg. 2004;20(4):293–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gosain AK, Recinos RF. A novel approach to correction of the prominent lobule during otoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;112(2):575–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ellis DA, Keohane JD. A simplified approach to otoplasty. J Otolaryngol. 1992;21(1):66–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schwentner I, Schmutzhard J, Deibl M, Sprinzl GM. Health-related quality of life outcome of adult patients after otoplasty. J Craniofac Surg. 2006;17(4):629–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Becker DG, Lai SS, Wise JB, Steiger JD. Analysis in otoplasty. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am. 2006;14(2):63–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nuara MJ, Mobley SR. Nuances of otoplasty: a comprehensive review of the past 20 years. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am. 2006;14(2):89–102.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yuen A, Coombs CJ. Reduction otoplasty: correction of the large or asymmetric ear. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2006;30(6):675–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mattheis S, Siegert R. Techniques in otoplasty. HNO. 2006;54(8):643–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bajaj Y, Rokade A, De PR. Otoplasty: experience with a modification using a drill, and literature review. J Laryngol Otol. 2007;121(1):61–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Emery BE. Otoplasty. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am. 2001;9(1):147–57.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sevin K, Sevin A. Otoplasty with Mustarde suture, cartilage rasping, and scratching. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2006;30(4):437–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gosain AK, Recinos RF. Otoplasty in children less than four years of age: surgical technique. J Craniofac Surg. 2002;13(4):505–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gomulinski L, Mauduy M, Saterre J. Our experience of otoplasty based on the study of the cartilaginous frame, especially the tail of the helix (about 244 cases and 22 anatomical dissections). Ann Chir Plast Esthet. 2005;50(3):206–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Adamson PA, Litner JA. Otoplasty technique. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am. 2006;14(2):79–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Elliott Jr RA. Otoplasty: a combined approach. Clin Plast Surg. 1990;17(2):373–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Furnas DW. Correction of prominent ears with multiple sutures. Clin Plast Surg. 1978;5(3):491–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bilkay U, Tiftikcioglu YO, Kapi E, Ozek C. Y-to-V setback for prominent lobule correction in otoplasty. Ann Plast Surg. 2011;66(6):623–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic SurgeryEge University Medical SchoolBornova-IzmirTurkey

Personalised recommendations