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

Comparative study of the effectiveness of the surgical technique with and without preservation of the conchal cartilage in otoplasty through the measure of the cephalo-auricular and scapho-conchal angles

Open access
Soares, Caio Marcio Correia, Nassif, Flávia David João De Masi, Dranka, Daniela, Becker, Renata Vecentin, Hurtado, Johann Melcherts, Freitas, Renato da Silva·2023·Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Prominent ear abnormalities affect 5% of the population. A prospective, double-blind study of patients who underwent otoplasty procedures to correct these abnormalities was conducted to compare two surgical techniques. They diverge by the preservation or not of conchal cartilage. METHODS: The two techniques were compared by measuring the cephalo-auricular and scapho-conchal angles. Measurements were performed in pre and 6-months post-operative periods using alginate molding. Twenty patients were randomly assigned to two groups (with and without cartilage preservation) with 10 participants each. Student's t-test, Covariance Analysis Model (ANCOVA), and non-parametric Mann-Whitney were used in the statistical analyses. RESULTS: A significant reduction in the average of the cephalo-auricular and scapho-conchal angles was observed in both surgical procedures (p<0.001). However, no significant difference was found between them (p=0.887). CONCLUSION: The two techniques analyzed in this study fulfilled their objectives. Therefore, further comparative studies are needed to confirm the superiority of one over the other. LEVEL I: Evidence obtained from at least one properly designed randomized controlled trial.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.bjorl.2022.12.002

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Soares, C. M. C., Nassif, F. D. J. D. M., Dranka, D., Becker, R. V., Hurtado, J. M., & Freitas, R. D. S.
Affiliations
  • Hospital IPO (BR)
  • Complexo Hospitalar do Trabalhador (BR)
  • Hospital de Clínicas Universidade Federal do Paraná (BR)
Corresponding author
Soares, Caio Marcio Correia
Venue
Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-05
Volume
89
Issue
3
Pages
410-416
ISSN
  • 1808-8686 (ISSN-L)
  • 1808-8694
OpenAlex
W4311490034
Cited by
3
References
27
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1
FWCI
0.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Universidade Federal do Paraná
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, prominent ears, surgical technique comparison, postoperative outcomes
MeSH terms
Cartilage, Ear Cartilage, Ear, External, Humans, Prospective Studies, 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