Cited by 3Reconstructive Facial Surgery TechniquesNasal Surgery and Airway StudiesCongenital Ear and Nasal Anomalies

Comparison of transcutaneous fixation-assisted method with classical needle-assisted method in prominent ear surgery.

Uyar, Ilker, Aksam, Ersin, Kopal, Can, Kapı, Emin·2023·Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

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 .

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00266-022-02838-2

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Uyar, I., Aksam, E., Kopal, C., & Kapı, E.
Affiliations
Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi (TR)
Venue
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery
Published
2022-03-24
Volume
47
Issue
1
Pages
189-198
ISSN
  • 0364-216X (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-5241
OpenAlex
W4220655101
Cited by
3
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 1
FWCI
0.24
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 › Surgery › Nasal Surgery and Airway Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Genetics › Congenital Ear and Nasal Anomalies
Keywords
otoplasty, operative time, postoperative outcomes
MeSH terms
Ear, External, Humans, Retrospective Studies, Treatment Outcome, Plastic Surgery Procedures, Ear Auricle

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