Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of Transcutaneous Fixation-Assisted Method with Classical Needle-Assisted Method in Prominent Ear Surgery

  • Original Article
  • Facial Surgery
  • Published:
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Prominent ear deformity is an autosomal dominant inherited deformity. Surgery is the most effective treatment method for prominent ear patients. Different prominent ear operations have been described in the literature.

In this study, it is aimed to compare the transcutaneous fixation-assisted method that we described in prominent ear repair with the classical needle-assisted method.

Methods

Patients who were operated for bilateral prominent ear deformity between January 2017 and January 2020 were included in the study. Two different approaches were used in the operations. In the first group, conventional needles were used to adjust the position of the concha-scaphal sutures. In the second group, transcutaneous suturing was used to adjust the position of the concha-scaphal sutures. The duration of the operation was recorded. Patients were called for controls in 1–3–6 and 12th months; photographs were taken. Measurements were made in the preoperative period, in the intraoperative and at the postoperative 12th month. SPSS program was used for statistical analysis.

Results

A total of 52 patients were included in the study. There were 27 patients in Group 1and 25 patients in Group 2. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of demographic characteristics (p>0.05).

While the average operation time was 80.37 minutes in Group 1, the average operation time was 60.40 minutes in Group 2. The operative times between the groups were statistically significant (p<0.05).

There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative measurements (p>0.05).

Conclusions

As a result, transcutaneous fixation-assisted method is performed faster than the classical needle-assisted method and the results are understood right at the beginning of the operation.

Level of evidence III

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

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
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Campobasso P, Belloli G (1993) Protruding Ears: The indications for surgical treatment (in Italian). Pediatr Med Chir 15:151

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Macgregor FC (1978) Ear deformities: Social and psychological implications. Clin Plast Surg 5:347

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Tan ST, Abramson DL, MacDonald DM, Mulliken JB (1997) Molding therapy for infants with deformational auricular anomalies. Ann Plast Surg 38:263–268

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Tan ST, Shibu M, Gault DT (1994) A splint for correction of congenital ear deformities. Br J Plast Surg 47:575

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Matsuo K, Hirose T, Tomono T et al (1984) Nonsurgical correction of congenital auricular deformities in the early neonate: A preliminary report. Plast Reconstr Surg 73:38

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mandal A, Bahia H, Ahmad T, Stewart KJ (2006) Comparison of cartilage scoring and cartilage sparing otoplasty–A study of 203 cases. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 59:1170–1176

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Horlock N, Misra A, Gault DT (2001) The postauricular fascial flap as an adjunct to Mustardé and Furnas type otoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 108:1487–1490

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sinha M, Richard B (2012) Postauricular fascial flap and suture otoplasty: a prospective outcome study of 227 patients. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 65:367–371

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Szychta P, Stewart KJ (2013) Comparison of cartilage scoring and cartilage sparing techniques in unilateral otoplasty: a ten-year experience. Ann Plast Surg 71:522–527

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Wood-Smith D (1980) Otoplasty. In: Rees T (ed) Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. Saunders, Philadelphia, p 833

    Google Scholar 

  12. Petersson RS, Recker CA, Martin JR, Driscoll CL, Friedman O (2012) Identification of congenital auricular deformities during newborn hearing screening allows for non-surgical correction: A Mayo Clinic pilot study. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 76(10):1406–1412

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. McDowell AJ (1968) Goals in otoplasty for protruding ears. Plast ReconstrSurg 41(1):17–27

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Yuce E, Gunenc AC, Yucel AF, Yazar M, Karşıdağ S (2017) Surgical treatment of prominent Ear: 5-year clinical experience in 108 patients. Turk J Plast Surg 25(1):12–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ozturan O, Dogan R, Eren SB, Aksoy F, Veyseller B (2013) Percutaneous adjustable closed otoplasty for prominent ear deformity. J Craniofac Surg 24(2):398–404

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ozturan O, Dogan R, Eren SB, Aksoy F, Veyseller B (2014) Cartilage sparing techniques versus percutaneous adjustable closed otoplasty for prominent ear deformity. J Craniofac Surg 25(3):752–757

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Spira M, McCrea R, Gerow FJ, Hardy SB (1969) Correction of the principal deformities causing protruding ears. Plast Reconstr Surg 44(2):150–154

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Mustarde JC (1963) The correction of prominent ears using simple mattress sutures. Br J Plast Surg 16:170–178

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Elliott RAJ (1978) Complications in the treatment of prominent ears. Clin Plast Surg 5(3):479–490

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Furnas DW (1968) Correction of prominent ears by conchamastoid sutures. Plast Reconstr Surg 42(3):189–193

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Toplu Y, Toplu SA, Sapmaz E, Deliktas H (2014) An unusual cause of conductive hearing loss: bilateral complete meatal obstruction following otoplasty. J Craniofac Surg 25(2):e168–e170

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Beasley NJ, Jones NS (1996) Otoplasty: the problem of the deep conchal bowl. J Laryngol Otol 110(9):864–868

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bauer BS, Song DH, Aitken ME (2002) Combined otoplasty technique: chondrocutaneous resection as the cornerstone to correctionof the prominent ear. Plast Reconstr Surg 110(4):1033–1040

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Yazar M, Basat SO, Bicer A, Yazar SK, Guven E, Kuvat SV, Emekli U (2012) Creating a neoconchal complex using the adjustable conchal sliding technique in prominent ear correction. J Craniofac Surg 23(5):1414–1417

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Weerda H, Siegert R (1994) Complications in otoplastic surgery and their treatment. Facial Plast Surg 10(3):287–297

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Limandjaja GC, Breugem CC, Mink van der Molen AB, Kon M (2009) Complications of otoplasty: a literature review. J Plast ReconstrAesthet Surg 62(1):19–27

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors have nothing to disclose. No funding was received for this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Izmir Katip Celebi University Medical Faculty, İzmir, Turkey

    Ilker Uyar & Ersin Aksam

  2. Private Practice, Kultur Mah. Sair Esref Bul. No:61 Bahar Apartmanı K:2 D:5, Alsancak, İzmir, Turkey

    Can Kopal

  3. Adana Medical Faculty, Health Application and Research Center, Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, University of Health Sciences, Adana, Turkey

    Emin Kapı

  4. Izmir Katip Celebi University Ataturk Training and Research Hospital, Basın Sitesi, Atatürk Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi, Karabağlar, 35360, İzmir, Turkey

    Ilker Uyar

Authors
  1. Ilker Uyar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ersin Aksam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Can Kopal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Emin Kapı
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ilker Uyar.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Local ethics committee approval was obtained.

Informed consent

All patients were informed of their consent.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Video 1: Removal of temporary fixations in group 2. It is seen that there is no change in the antihelical fold after the sutures are removed. (WMV 53598 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Uyar, I., Aksam, E., Kopal, C. et al. Comparison of Transcutaneous Fixation-Assisted Method with Classical Needle-Assisted Method in Prominent Ear Surgery. Aesth Plast Surg 47, 189–198 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-022-02838-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-022-02838-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation