Cited by 8Reconstructive Facial Surgery TechniquesCongenital Ear and Nasal AnomaliesNasal Surgery and Airway Studies

Diagnosis and Prevalence of Prominent Lobules in Otoplasty: Analysis of 120 Patients with Prominent Ears

Ungarelli, Luís Fernando, de Andrade, Camila Zirlis Naif, Marques, Evelyne Gabriela Schmaltz Chaves, Jorge, João Luís Gil, Neto, Bruno Francisco Müller, de Andrade, Guilherme Augusto Magalhães, Lima, Renan Victor Kumpel Schmidt, Nunes, Altacílio Aparecido +1 more·2016·Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

Abstract

Background The prominence of the ear lobule is considered an anomaly of secondary importance and receives correspondingly less attention in literature. We reviewed a case series of otoplasty patients and analyzed the prevalence of lobule prominence.Methods Records of otoplasties between 2007 and 2013 were reviewed. Inclusion criteria were: (1) primary otoplasties; (2) prominence of both ears; and (3) otoplasties conducted by the main author. Patients were divided into two groups: (1) A general group (GG) containing all the patients, and (2) a lobule correction group (LG)-a subgroup of GG containing only the patients who needed lobule correction.Results From a total of 291 patients, 120 patients were included in GG and 27 patients in LG. There was no statistical difference between groups GG and LG in terms of age and gender. Preoperative diagnosis of lobule prominence was correctly established in 14 patients; 13 patients were diagnosed during surgery.Conclusions Lobule prominence should not be underestimated since its diagnosis may be missed in the preoperative period-nearly 50 % in our case. Also its prevalence (22.5 %) is not as infrequent as some may think. Knowledge of lobule correction techniques before surgery is important to avoid less than optimal results in otoplasty.Level of evidence v 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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00266-016-0678-x

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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 18 · Cited by 8

Authors
Ungarelli, L. F., de Andrade, C. Z. N., Marques, E. G. S. C., Jorge, J. L. G., Neto, B. F. M., de Andrade, G. A. M., Lima, R. V. K. S., Nunes, A. A., & Farina, J. A.
Affiliations
Universidade de São Paulo (BR)
Corresponding author
Ungarelli, Luís Fernando
Venue
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery
Published
2016-07-07
Volume
40
Issue
5
Pages
645-651
ISSN
  • 0364-216X (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-5241
OpenAlex
W2475059296
Cited by
8
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1
FWCI
0.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Reconstructive Facial Surgery Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Genetics › Congenital Ear and Nasal Anomalies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Nasal Surgery and Airway Studies
Keywords
prominent ears, otoplasty, preoperative diagnosis, prevalence, ear anomalies
MeSH terms
Congenital Abnormalities, Adult, Cross-Sectional Studies, Esthetics, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Retrospective Studies, Surgery, Plastic, Prevalence, Treatment Outcome, Risk Assessment, Ear Auricle, 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