Cited by 41Reconstructive Facial Surgery TechniquesCraniofacial Disorders and TreatmentsCongenital Ear and Nasal Anomalies

Long-term results of posterior suturing with postauricular fascial flap otoplasty.

Schaverien, M.V., Al-Busaidi, S., Stewart, K.J.·2010·Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery

Abstract

Background Posterior suturing with postauricular fascial flap otoplasty has previously been shown to be associated with a significantly reduced rate of complications and better aesthetic outcome when compared with the anterior scoring and posterior suturing techniques. This study evaluates the long-term results of this technique.Material and methods A retrospective casenote analysis of all paediatric patients who underwent otoplasty within a four-year period were retrieved. Sixty patients (112 ears) met the inclusion criteria (mean age 8.5 years; range 4 to 14). The perpendicular distance from the mastoid to the helical rim at the Frankfort line was recorded preoperatively and immediately postoperatively. Patients were invited to a follow up clinic where further measurements were taken by two observers. Photographs were evaluated by an independent blinded observer.Results The clinical recurrence rate was 4.5%. Thirty patients (57 ears) attended the follow-up clinic (mean 3.9 years since surgery). Mean loss of medialisation was 0.7 mm (6.2%), with loss of medialisation of > or =1 mm seen in 26 ears (46%), and improvement in medialisation of > or =1 mm in 15 ears (26%). Mean visual analogue scores for overall appearance and symmetry were higher at follow-up than at six weeks postoperatively. There was no relationship between measurements or visual analogue scores and duration since surgery.Conclusions In conclusion posterior suturing with braided polyester permanent sutures covered with a postauricular fascial flap results in longevity of postoperative appearance and symmetry with low clinical recurrence rates and with excellent patient and parent satisfaction.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.bjps.2009.09.013

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 14 · Cited by 41

Authors
Schaverien, M. V., Al-Busaidi, S., & Stewart, K. J.
Affiliations
Royal Hospital for Children (GB)
Corresponding author
Stewart, K.J.
Venue
Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-09
Volume
63
Issue
9
Pages
1447-1451
ISSN
1748-6815 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1977876779
Cited by
41
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 3
FWCI
2.36
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
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Craniofacial Disorders and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Genetics › Congenital Ear and Nasal Anomalies
Keywords
otoplasty, pediatric patients, recurrence, ear symmetry, long-term outcomes
MeSH terms
Child, Child, Preschool, Ear, External, Esthetics, Fascia, Female, Humans, Male, Postoperative Complications, Retrospective Studies, Otologic Surgical Procedures, Surgical Flaps, Suture Techniques, Treatment Outcome

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