Journals / Turkish Journal of Plastic Surgery / 2016 / Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 3

Effectiveness of Combined Technique for the Correction of Prominent Ears

Kepçe Kulak Onarımında Kombine Tekniklerin Etkinliği

Pages
113–117
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Combined techniques appear to be effective in preventing recurrence and achieving ideal esthetic results

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: Prominent ear is one of the most frequent congenital deformities of the ear.
📊
Key Findings & Data:More than 200 different techniques have been described so far.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Combined techniques appear to be effective in preventing recurrence and achieving ideal esthetic results
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2014 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: Prominent ear is one of the most frequent congenital deformities of the ear. The major causes are often due to an underdeveloped antihelical fold, conchal hypertrophy, and a prominent ear lobule. More than 200 different techniques have been described so far. This report presents the effectiveness of a combined technique (Mustardé suture, Furnas suture, and conchal excision), which is frequently used in prominent ear treatment to prevent recurrence. Material and Methods: Between 2014 and 2015, 18 patients with a mean age of 13.4 years were operated in our clinic. After preoperative measurements were taken to obtain the distance between the helix-mastoid and the angle between the concha-mastoid, patients with an enlarged concha were treated using three surgical techniques (Furnas suture, Mustardé suture, and conchal excision), whereas those who did not have a conchal enlargement were treated using two surgical techniques (Furnas suture and Mustardé suture). At 6 months postoperatively, the distance between the helix-mastoid and the angle between the concha-mastoid were measured as mentioned above, and the new measurements were compared with the preoperative findings.Results: The desired esthetic results were achieved after the operation. The mean follow-up period was 10 months (range: 6–14 months). Compared with the preoperative findings, there was a statistically significant decrease in the concha-mastoid angle and in the helix-mastoid distance. Complications were not observed except in one patient who had a hematoma and in one patient who had asymmetry.Conclusion: Asymmetry and recurrence are observed frequently after prominent ear treatment. Combined techniques appear to be effective in preventing recurrence and achieving ideal esthetic results

Özet

Amaç: Kepçe kulak deformitesi kulağın en sık konjenital deformitesidir. Deformiteye neden olan sebepler arasında başlıca silik antihelix, konkal fazlalık ve kulak lobülünün prominensi sayılabilir. Kepçe kulak onarımında günümüze kadar 200 farklı teknik tarif edilmiştir. Bu makalede kepçe kulak onarımında en sık kullanılan üç tekniğin (Furnas sütürü, Mustardé sütürü ve konka eksizyonu) kombine edilmesinin nüksetmeyi önlemedeki etkinliği tartışılmıştır.Gereç ve Yöntemler: Kliniğimizde 2014-2015 yılları arasında ortalama yaşları 13,4 olan toplam 18 kepçe kulak hastası opere edilmiştir. Bu hastaların preoperatif konka-mastoid açıları ve helix-mastoid arası mesafeleri ölçüldükten sonra, konka derinliği çok olan hastalarda her üç teknik (Furnas sütürü, Mustardé sütürü ve konka eksizyonu), konkal derinliği çok olmayanlarda ise en az iki cerrahi teknik (Furnas sütürü, Mustardé sütürü) uygulanmıştır. Postoperatif 6. ayın sonunda bahsedilen açı ve mesafe ölçümleri tekrar yapılmış ve preoperatif değerler ile karşılaştırılmıştır.Bulgular: Opere edilen tüm hastalarda amaçlanan estetik sonuçlara ulaşıldı. Ortalama takip süresi 10 ay (6-14 ay). Postoperatif konka-mastoid açı ve heliks-mastoid arası mesafeler preoperatif değerlere karşılaştırıldığında istatistiksel olarak düşük bulundu. Bir hastada hematom ve bir hasta da asimetri dışında komplikasyon görülmedi. Sonuç: Kepçe kulak operasyonlarının en sık görülen geç dönem komplikasyonu asimetri ve nükstür. Kepçe kulak operasyonlarında kombine tekniklerin kullanımının nüksetmenin önlenmesinde ve ideal estetik sonuçların alınmasında etkili olduğu görülmektedir

🔖

Cite This Article

KEMALOĞLU, C. A., KILIÇ, F., DOĞAN, F. (2016). Effectiveness of Combined Technique for the Correction of Prominent Ears. Turkish Journal of Plastic Surgery, Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 3, 113–117. https://ajindex.com/articles/375888

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (1)

  1. Janis JE, Rohrich RJ, Gutowsky KA. Otoplasty (review). Plast Reconstr Surg 2005; 115(4): 60-72. [CrossRef] 2. Adamson PA, Litner JA. Otoplasty technique (review). Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 2006; 14(2): 79-87. [CrossRef] 3. Bisaccia E, Lugo A, Johnson B, Scarborough D. The surgical correction of protuberant ears. Skin Therapy Lett 2005; 10(2): 7-9. 4. Yazici I, Findikçioğlu F, Ozmen S, Noyan N, Yavuzer R. Posterior auricular muscle flap as an adjunct to otoplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2009; 33(4): 527-32.[CrossRef] 5. Calder JC, Nassan A. Morbidity of otoplasty: a review of 562 consecutive cases. Br J Plast Surg 1994; 47(3): 170-4. [CrossRef] 6. Harlock N, Misra A, Gault DT. The postauricular fascial flap as an adjunct to Mustardé and furnas type otoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 2001; 108(6): 1487-90; discussion 1491. [CrossRef] 7. Hassanpour SE, Moosavizadeh SM. Posterior scorring of the scapha as a refinement in aesthetic otoplasty. J Plast Recontr Aesthet Surg 2010; 63(1): 78-86. [CrossRef] 8. Ely ET. An operation for prominence of the auricles. Arch Otol 1881; 10: 97-9. 9. Zaoli G. Aesthetic plastic surgery, Vol. 2, St. Louis, MO: Mosby 1988: 165. 10. Caouette L, Guay N, Bortoluzzi P, Belleville, C. Otoplasty: anterior scoring technique and results in 500 cases. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000; 105(2): 504-15. [CrossRef] 11. Mustardé JC. The correction of prominent ears using simple mattress sutures. Br J Plast Surg 1963; 16: 170-8. [CrossRef] 12. Furnas DW. Correction of prominent ears by concha-mastoid sutures. Plast Reconstr Surg 1968; 42(3): 189-93. [CrossRef] 13. Stenstrom SJ. A “natural” technique for correction of congenitally prominent ears. Plast Recontr Surg 1963; 32(5): 509-18. [CrossRef] 14. Brenda E, Marques A, Pereira MD, Zantut PE. Otoplasty and its origins for the correction of prominent ears. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 1995; 23(2): 99-104. [CrossRef] 15. Weinzweig N, Chen L, Sullivan WG. Histomorphology of neochondrogenesis after anthelical fold creation: a comparison of three otoplasty technıques in the rabbit. Ann Plast Surg 1994; 33(4): 371-6. [CrossRef] 16. Baker DC, Converse JM. Correction of Protruding ears: A 20- year restropective. Aesthetic Plast Surg 1979; 3(1): 29-39. [CrossRef] 17. Pilz S, Hintringer T, Bauer M. Otoplasty using a spherical metal head dermabrader to form a retroauricular furrow: five years results. Aesthetic Plast Surg 1995; 19(1): 83-91. [CrossRef] 18. Jinguang Z, Leren H, Hongxing Z. Experience of correction o