The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Complications of otoplasty: a literature review.
Abstract
Over 200 otoplasty techniques have been described in the current literature. However, relatively few articles focus on the associated complication rates. The goal of this review is to examine the incidence of complication rates associated with otoplasty procedures. An electronic search of the Pubmed database yielded 205 articles with significant overlap in search results. Twenty articles published between 2000 and 2007 adhered to our inclusion criteria. Early complications included in this review were haematoma, bleeding, infection, skin necrosis and wound dehiscence; late complications included suture extrusion, scarring, hypersensitivity, asymmetry and inaesthetic results. The cumulative incidence of early complications was low and varied from 0% to 8.4%, with the exception of two outliers. Although cumulative late complication incidences varied greatly from 0% to 47.3%, complication rates on the higher end of the spectrum were not accompanied with revision rates of the same magnitude. Comparison of the different articles was made difficult by the lack of a uniform calculation method for complication incidence, variable follow-up length and data collection, inconsistent use of operation technique and publication bias. Recommendations for future studies include: consistent use of operative technique or at least differentiate between the used surgical techniques when presenting complication rates, inclusion of only patients with bilateral primary procedures, considering each operated ear as an independent variable when calculating complication incidence and a minimum follow-up period of 2 years, with both objective and subjective data collection.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“Our suture extrusion rate of 16.8% falls within the range described in the literature; however, remains slightly higher than average rates reported.”
From Outcomes and Complications of the Mustardé Otoplasty: A “Good–Fast–Cheap” Technique for the Prominent Ear Deformity (2020) · cites this paper as [2]
In the citing paper
“Prominent ear is the most frequent congenital external ear deformity, affecting roughly 5% of the general population.1–3”
From Outcomes and Complications of the Mustardé Otoplasty: A “Good–Fast–Cheap” Technique for the Prominent Ear Deformity (2020) · cites this paper as [2]
In the citing paper
“The complication rate for cartilage-sparing techniques is in the range of 0.4%–24%, with a revision rate of approximately 13.6%.2,9,10”
From Outcomes and Complications of the Mustardé Otoplasty: A “Good–Fast–Cheap” Technique for the Prominent Ear Deformity (2020) · cites this paper as [2]
In the citing paper
“As such, otoplasty has become one of the most common aesthetic operations in children and adolescents.2,6,7”
From Outcomes and Complications of the Mustardé Otoplasty: A “Good–Fast–Cheap” Technique for the Prominent Ear Deformity (2020) · cites this paper as [2]
In the citing paper
“Classically, the Mustardé technique has been associated with variable rates of suture extrusion, suture line granuloma formation, and relapsing deformity secondary to suture fatigue (0%–22.2%).2”
From Outcomes and Complications of the Mustardé Otoplasty: A “Good–Fast–Cheap” Technique for the Prominent Ear Deformity (2020) · cites this paper as [2]
In the citing paper
“Second, the higher suture extrusion rates seen in this study may be attributed to the use of nonabsorbable suture material, which has previously been reported.2”
From Outcomes and Complications of the Mustardé Otoplasty: A “Good–Fast–Cheap” Technique for the Prominent Ear Deformity (2020) · cites this paper as [2]
In the citing paper
“This may be secondary to prolonged follow-up times in our study, as our median follow-up time of 104 weeks (range, 98–187 weeks) in the suture extrusion group exceeds the median follow-up of 52 weeks (range, 26–52 weeks) across what is seen in the literature.2,12”
From Outcomes and Complications of the Mustardé Otoplasty: A “Good–Fast–Cheap” Technique for the Prominent Ear Deformity (2020) · cites this paper as [2]
In the citing paper
“Nonetheless, these techniques are not without drawbacks. Reported complications include suture extrusion, granuloma formation, and recurrence rates of up to 25% [12,13,14].”
From Comparative Analysis of Mustardé, Fascioperichondrial Flap, and Combined Otoplasty Techniques: Clinical Outcomes and Recurrence Rates in 365 Patients (2025) · cites this paper as [13]
In the citing paper
“There is no up-to-date comparison between techniques, necessitating the need for a review.2”
From Otoplasty for prominent ear: A systematic review of surgical techniques (2026) · cites this paper as [2]
In the citing paper
“the optimal technique has long been debated, with >200 methods described in the literature.”
From Otoplasty for prominent ear: A systematic review of surgical techniques (2026) · cites this paper as [2]
In the citing paper
“Over 200 different techniques have been described in the surgical correction of correcting ears.6”
From Anterior versus Posterior Scoring of Cartilage in Otoplasty: A Retrospective Patient-related Outcome Measurement Study (2020) · cites this paper as [6]
In the citing paper
“In our study, complication rates in different techniques are according to rates noted in previously conducted research.6”
From Anterior versus Posterior Scoring of Cartilage in Otoplasty: A Retrospective Patient-related Outcome Measurement Study (2020) · cites this paper as [6]
In the citing paper
“the complication rates of otoplasty are as high as 10% [2].”
From Correction of Congenital Auricular Deformities Using the Ear-Molding Technique (2016) · cites this paper as [2]
In the citing paper
“Complications of such a procedure may be dreadful and may include tissue necrosis, hematoma, bleeding, infection, or hypertrophic scarring, with complication rates varying from 0% to 10%.22,23”
From Non-surgical Correction of Congenital Ear Anomalies: A Review of the Literature (2020) · cites this paper as [22]
Citations
Cites
GOALS IN OTOPLASTY FOR PROTRUDING EARS
McDowell, A. J. (1968) · Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery · doi:10.1097/00006534-196801000-00004 · Cited by 184
Janis, J. E., Rohrich, R. J., & Gutowski, K. A. (2005) · Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery · doi:10.1097/01.prs.0000156218.93855.c9 · Cited by 159
Otoplasty: Evaluation, Technique, and Review
Kelley, P., Hollier, L., & Stal, S. (2003) · Journal of Craniofacial Surgery · doi:10.1097/00001665-200309000-00008 · Cited by 142 · cited 10×
“Prominauris, the condition of prominent ears, is the most common congenital external ear deformity.(5,8) It is relatively prevalent among the Caucasian population, with an incidence of approximately 5%.”
BackgroundResultInfluentialPLASTIC & RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY
(1998) · Australian and New Zealand Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1111/j.1445-2197.1998.tb07246.x · Cited by 106
The postauricular fascial flap as an adjunct to Mustardé and Furnas type otoplasty.
Horlock, N., Misra, A., & Gault, D. T. (2001) · Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery · doi:10.1097/00006534-200111000-00005 · Cited by 102
Otoplasty: Anterior Scoring Technique and Results in 500 Cases
Caouette‐Laberge, L., Guay, N. A., Bortoluzzi, P. A., & Belleville, C. (2000) · Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery · doi:10.1097/00006534-200002000-00004 · Cited by 100
Otoplasty: Critical review of clinical results
Adamson, P. A., Mcgraw, B. L., & Tropper, G. J. (1991) · The Laryngoscope · doi:10.1288/00005537-199108000-00013 · Cited by 99
Ear deformities: social and psychological implications
MacGregor, F. C. (1978) · Clinics in Plastic Surgery · doi:10.1016/s0094-1298(20)32138-6 · Cited by 99
Adamson, P., & Strecker, H. (1995) · Facial Plastic Surgery · doi:10.1055/s-2008-1064545 · Cited by 96
Comparison of cartilage scoring and cartilage sparing otoplasty: a study of 203 cases.
Mandal, A., Bahia, H., Ahmad, T., & Stewart, K. J. (2006) · Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2006.01.055 · Cited by 83
Long-term survey of prominent ear surgery: a comparison of two methods
Tan, K. H. (1986) · British Journal of Plastic Surgery · doi:10.1016/0007-1226(86)90100-1 · Cited by 82
Complications in the treatment of prominent ears
Elliott, R. A. (1978) · Clinics in Plastic Surgery · doi:10.1016/s0094-1298(20)32154-4 · Cited by 73
Complications of Surgery of the External Ear
Furnas, D. W. (1990) · Clinics in Plastic Surgery · doi:10.1016/s0094-1298(20)31245-1 · Cited by 49
Bulstrode, N., Huang, S., & Martin, D. (2003) · British Journal of Plastic Surgery · doi:10.1016/s0007-1226(03)00030-4 · Cited by 47
The Post-Meeting “Wear-You-Out” Syndrome in Cosmetic Surgery
Rohrich, R. J. (2001) · Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery · doi:10.1097/00006534-200109150-00038 · Cited by 46
Bauer, B. S., Song, D. H., & Aitken, M. E. (2002) · Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery · doi:10.1097/01.prs.0000021310.11022.4d · Cited by 45
Complications in Otoplastic Surgery and Their Treatment
Weerda, H., & Siegert, R. (1994) · Facial Plastic Surgery · doi:10.1055/s-2008-1064579 · Cited by 44
Cartilage-sparing otoplasty: a review with long-term results
Vuyk, H. D. (1997) · The Journal of Laryngology & Otology · doi:10.1017/s0022215100137545 · Cited by 40
Correction of protruding ears: A 20-year retrospective
Baker, D. C., & Converse, J. M. (1979) · Aesthetic Plastic Surgery · doi:10.1007/bf01577834 · Cited by 38
New Modification in Otoplasty: Anterior Approach
Erol, O. Ö. (2001) · Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery · doi:10.1097/00006534-200101000-00032 · Cited by 38
Otoplasty: Sequencing the Operation for Improved Results
Hoehn, J. G., & Ashruf, S. (2005) · Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery · doi:10.1097/01.prs.0000146680.27906.90 · Cited by 36
Scuderi, N., Tenna, S., Bitonti, A., & Vonella, M. (2007) · Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2006.01.035 · Cited by 33
Otoplasty: Anterior Scoring and Posterior Rolling Technique in Adults
Peker, F., & Çeli̇köz, B. (2002) · Aesthetic Plastic Surgery · doi:10.1007/s00266-002-2028-4 · Cited by 30
Closed anterior scoring for prominent-ear correction revisited
Thomas, S., & Fatah, F. (2001) · British Journal of Plastic Surgery · doi:10.1054/bjps.2001.3677 · Cited by 30
The Becker Technique for Otoplasty: Modified and Revisited With Long‐Term Outcomes
Lee, D. M., & Bluestone, C. D. (2000) · The Laryngoscope · doi:10.1097/00005537-200006000-00012 · Cited by 26
Nordzell, B. (2000) · Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery · doi:10.1097/00006534-200012000-00004 · Cited by 25
Reconstructing the Antihelix of Protruding Ears by Perichondrioplasty
Ohlsén, L., Vedung, S., & Ohlsén, L. (1980) · Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery · doi:10.1097/00006534-198006000-00007 · Cited by 23
Otoplasty: experience with a modification using a drill, and literature review
Bajaj, Y., Rokade, A., & De, P. R. (2006) · The Journal of Laryngology & Otology · doi:10.1017/s0022215106003689 · Cited by 20
Campbell, A. (2005) · Facial Plastic Surgery · doi:10.1055/s-2006-939510 · Cited by 20
Revision Otoplasty and Special Problems
Walter, C., & Trenité, G. N. (1994) · Facial Plastic Surgery · doi:10.1055/s-2008-1064580 · Cited by 19
Otoplasty: A Modified Anterior Scoring Technique
Trenité, G. J. N. (2004) · Facial Plastic Surgery · doi:10.1055/s-2005-865386 · Cited by 19
Prominent ears: A follow-up study
Nielsen, F., Kristensen, S., & Crawford, M. (1985) · The Journal of Laryngology & Otology · doi:10.1017/s0022215100096596 · Cited by 18
Otoplasty: Anterior Abrasion of Ear Cartilage with Dermabrader
Mascio, D., Castagnetti, F., & Baldassarre, S. (2003) · Aesthetic Plastic Surgery · doi:10.1007/s00266-003-3059-1 · Cited by 17
Pitanguy's Method of Protruding Ear Correction from Our Own Experience: Review of 80 Cases
Bartkowski, S. B., Szuta, M., & Zapała, J. (2001) · Aesthetic Plastic Surgery · doi:10.1007/s002660010105 · Cited by 15
Surgical Correction of Prominent Ear Using Modified Tube Technique and Posterior Approach
Cho, B. C., Chung, H. Y., & Park, J. W. (2003) · Journal of Craniofacial Surgery · doi:10.1097/00001665-200309000-00031 · Cited by 14
Otoplasty for prominent ears with combined techniques
Bogetti, P., Boltri, M., Spagnoli, G., & Balocco, P. (2003) · European Journal of Plastic Surgery · doi:10.1007/s00238-003-0516-7 · Cited by 13
Otoplasty for prominent ears: personal technique and review of 150 consecutive cases
Colpaert, S. D. M., & Missotten, F. E. M. (2005) · European Journal of Plastic Surgery · doi:10.1007/s00238-005-0738-y · Cited by 10
A technique for remodeling the antihelix to correct the prominent ear
Robiony, M., Costa, F., & Politi, M. (2001) · Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery · doi:10.1053/joms.2001.19259 · Cited by 10
Cartilage-sparing otoplasty: Our experience
Vital, V., & Printza, A. (2002) · The Journal of Laryngology & Otology · doi:10.1258/002221502760237948 · Cited by 9
&NA; (2000) · Annals of Plastic Surgery · doi:10.1097/00000637-200045030-00026 · Cited by 5
Sylaidis, P., & Gault, D. (2000) · PubMed · Cited by 4
Flagged first, then by citations
1 of the 42 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
van Wijk, M. P., Breugem, C. C., & Kon, M. (2009) · Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2009.01.020 · Cited by 88
Braun, T., Hainzinger, T., Stelter, K., Krause, E., Berghaus, A., & Hempel, J. M. (2010) · Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery · doi:10.1097/prs.0b013e3181f449c7 · Cited by 74
Handler, E. B., Song, T., & Shih, C. (2013) · Facial Plastic Surgery Clinics of North America · doi:10.1016/j.fsc.2013.08.001 · Cited by 58
Otoplasty for the Protruded Ear
Nazarian, R., & Eshraghi, A. (2011) · Seminars in Plastic Surgery · doi:10.1055/s-0031-1288921 · Cited by 47
“Mersilene sutures usually have an 8% incidence of granuloma formation.(12) Treatment usually involves removal of sutures.”
Backgroundvan Wijk, M. P., Breugem, C. C., & Kon, M. (2012) · Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2011.08.021 · Cited by 45
Metadata
- Authors
- Limandjaja, G. C., Breugem, C. C., Mink van der Molen, A. B., & Kon, M.
- Affiliations
- University Medical Center Utrecht (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Breugem, C.C.
- Venue
- Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2009-01
- Volume
- 62
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 19-27
- ISSN
- 1748-6815 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2049706024
- Cited by
- 151
- References
- 42
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 12
- FWCI
- 0.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Plastic Reconstructive & Aesthetic 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 (clinical) › Congenital Ear and Nasal Anomalies
- Keywords
- otoplasty, postoperative complications, complication incidence, hematoma, wound dehiscence, suture extrusion, scar formation, asymmetry, reoperation
- MeSH terms
- Ear, External, Esthetics, Humans, Postoperative Complications, Surgical Wound Dehiscence, Surgical Wound Infection, Sutures, Postoperative Hemorrhage
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
