Cited by 75Reconstructive Facial Surgery TechniquesCraniofacial Disorders and TreatmentsCongenital Ear and Nasal Anomalies

Otoplasty. Clinical protocol and long-term results.

Messner, A. H., Crysdale, W. S.·1996·Archives of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term results after otoplasty on prominent ears. DESIGN: Between 1988 and 1993, ear protrusion was measured preoperatively and postoperatively in pediatric patients undergoing otoplasty by means of a standard protocol based on the Frankfort horizontal line. Patients were asked to return for follow-up measurements a minimum of 1 year after surgery. At the time of follow-up, a patient satisfaction survey was completed by the patients and their families. SETTING: The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, a tertiary care children's hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-one of 51 patients returned for follow-up an average of 3.7 years after surgery. RESULTS: One third of ears returned to their original position, one third of ears stayed in a position equal to the immediate postoperative position, and one third of ears had final positions between the preoperative and post-operative positions. At the superior rim, an average of 58% of the operative medialization was lost. Good to excellent ear-to-ear symmetry was obtained in 78% of patients who returned for follow-up. Retrospective chart review showed a revision surgery rate of 3%; stitch granulomas were removed in 9% of patients. The patient satisfaction survey found that 85% of patients were happy or very happy with their ears. CONCLUSIONS: With time, a substantial loss of correction can be expected in most (but not all) patients who undergo otoplasty, particularly at the upper pole. Overall, patients and their families are happy with the results of otoplasty surgery.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archotol.1996.01890190069016

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Messner and Crysdale showed that Mustardé and Furnas sutures achieved good or excellent results in 78% of pediatric cases, despite some relapse in the superior auricle.

    “Messner and Crysdale81 showing that Mustardé14 and Furnas15 sutures achieved good or excellent results in 78% of pediatric cases, despite some relapse in the superior auricle.”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 9 · Cited by 75

Authors
Messner, A. H., & Crysdale, W. S.
Affiliations
Lucile Packard Children's Hospital (US)
Venue
Archives of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
Published
1996-07-01
Volume
122
Issue
7
Pages
773-777
ISSN
0886-4470 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2034264262
Cited by
75
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 3 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Reconstructive Facial Surgery Techniques
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Craniofacial Disorders and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Genetics › Congenital Ear and Nasal Anomalies
Keywords
otoplasty, prominent ears, pediatric patients, long-term outcomes, loss of correction, reoperation, patient satisfaction
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Anesthesia, General, Child, Child, Preschool, Clinical Protocols, Ear Cartilage, Ear, External, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Surgery, Plastic, Patient Satisfaction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review