Minimally Invasive Otoplasty: Technical Details and Long-Term Results
Abstract
Background Aesthetic correction of the ears requires thorough diagnosis and subsequent treatment of the affected areas. The authors' technique addresses every deformity that might need correction through separate incisions, minimal scars, and conservative dissection without the use of permanent sutures. Correction of the eventual discrepancy between cartilage height and the skin envelope is particularly observed and addressed by means of scaphal reduction. The technical details, long-term results, and complications are evaluated in this article. Methods A retrospective review of 100 otoplasties performed between 2005 and 2009 by a single surgeon was conducted. Charts were reviewed and data were collected on the type of deformity corrected, the complications, and the outcome. Results Minimally invasive otoplasty was performed for 100 patients, primarily women (n=71), with an average age of 23.2 years. In 96 cases, bilateral correction was performed using a combination of concho-mastoid sutures (81%), scapha reduction (76%), antihelical folding (70%), conchal reduction (53%), or earlobe correction (19%). Three patients experienced partial recurrence and needed further correction. Partial upper pole necrosis developed in one patient after undue tension was applied to his dressing, and further correction was needed. Three patients experienced mild partial skin discoloration and epidermolysis that lasted no more than 10 days. Most of the patients were very satisfied (84%) or satisfied (15%) with the procedure after an average follow-up period of 12.4 months. Conclusions Restoration of facial harmony through aesthetic correction of the ears is a highly satisfying procedure for both patients and surgeons. Since 1988, the author's unit has pursued and improved a technique that could provide shorter recovery times, minimal morbidity, and predictable results for a population consisting primarily of adults. This minimally invasive technique can achieve these goals with excellent long-term aesthetic outcomes.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Minimally invasive otoplasty outcomes demonstrate high satisfaction, minimal morbidity, and optimal results in patients with well-defined antihelix and limited conchal hypertrophy.
“Outcomes demonstrate high satisfaction, minimal morbidity, and optimal results in patients with well-defined antihelix and limited conchal hypertrophy.50–52”
From Otoplasty Surgical Techniques and Clinical Outcomes: A Practical Review (2026) · cites this paper as [50]
Cites
The distortion of autogenous cartilage grafts: Its cause and prevention.
Gibson, T., & Davis, W. B. (1957) · British Journal of Plastic Surgery · doi:10.1016/s0007-1226(57)80042-3 · Cited by 451 · see citing works
The correction of prominent ears using simple mattress sutures
Mustardé, J. C. (1963) · British Journal of Plastic Surgery · doi:10.1016/s0007-1226(63)80100-9 · Cited by 426 · see citing works
A “NATURAL” TECHNIQUE FOR CORRECTION OF CONGENITALLY PROMINENT EARS
STENSTRÖM, S. J. (1963) · Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery · doi:10.1097/00006534-196311000-00003 · Cited by 328 · cited 3× · see citing works
“Like many techniques in otoplasty, our procedure is based on the papers published by Stenström [3], Ju and Crikelair [4], and Chongchet [5], all of them inspired by Gibson and Davis’s [8] interlocked stresses of cartilage.”
A method of antihelix reconstruction
Chongchet, V. (1963) · British Journal of Plastic Surgery · doi:10.1016/s0007-1226(63)80120-4 · Cited by 219 · see citing works
Schlegel-Wagner, C., Pabst, G., Müller, W., & Linder, T. (2010) · Archives of Facial Plastic Surgery · doi:10.1001/archfaci.2010.34 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Otoplasty for prominent ears—demographics and surgical timing in different populations.
Kajosaari, L., Pennanen, J., & Klockars, T. (2017) · International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology · doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2017.06.014 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Otoplasty with an unusual cartilage scoring approach.
Gümüş, N., & Yılmaz, S. (2016) · Journal of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery · doi:10.3109/2000656x.2015.1065265 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Otoplasty Surgical Techniques and Clinical Outcomes: A Practical Review
Kaleeny, J. D., & Janis, J. E. (2026) · Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open · doi:10.1097/gox.0000000000007404
- Authors
- de la Fuente, A., & Sordo, G.
- Venue
- Aesthetic Plastic Surgery
- Published
- 2011-06-03
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 77-82
- ISSN
- 0364-216X (ISSN-L)
- 1432-5241
- OpenAlex
- W2147913835
- Cited by
- 16
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 1.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Reconstructive Facial Surgery Techniques
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Nasal Surgery and Airway Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Genetics › Congenital Ear and Nasal Anomalies
- Keywords
- prominent ears, recurrence, postoperative complications, long-term outcomes, patient satisfaction
- MeSH terms
- Ear Diseases, Ear, External, Female, Humans, Male, Retrospective Studies, Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures, Plastic Surgery Procedures, Young Adult
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