Cited by 40Reconstructive Facial Surgery TechniquesNasal Surgery and Airway StudiesCongenital Ear and Nasal Anomalies

Complications after prominent ear correction: a systematic review of the literature.

Sadhra, S.S., Motahariasl, S., Hardwicke, J.T.·2017·Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery

Abstract

Background There is great diversity in reported post-operative outcomes for otoplasty, with the incidence of haematoma or infection ranging from 0% to 15.6% and 0%-10%, respectively. With such variability, it is difficult to determine an overall 'average' incidence of common post-operative complications.Methods A systematic review of the most relevant medical databases was conducted for studies available in English published between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2015. Using the dataset, pooled estimates for the incidence of the primary and secondary outcomes were calculated for all included studies. The primary outcome was haematoma and/or bleeding incidence, and the secondary outcomes included infection, skin/wound healing problems, suture-related problems, scarring, pain and itching, and revision surgeries/recurrence. Comparable sub-group analysis of studies was also performed using calculated pooled proportions.Results After screening, 28 articles involving 3493 patients were included in the study. Pooled proportions revealed that haematoma and/or bleeding incidence was 2.5% (95% CI: 1.4-3.8%), infection 0.8% (95% CI: 0.4-1.3%), skin/wound healing problems 3% (95% CI: 1.4-5.1%), suture-related problems 1.8% (95% CI: 0.8-3.2%), scarring 1.6% (95% CI: 0.8-2.6%), pain and itching 13% (95% CI: 5.4-23.1%) and revision surgeries/recurrence 5% (95% CI: 2.9-7.7%).Conclusions By pooling proportions of reported complications, the results of this study could be useful in the personal audit of practice and will be a point of reference for comparing novel surgical techniques in the future.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.bjps.2017.05.033

Cites

51 of 51 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.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sadhra, S. S., Motahariasl, S., & Hardwicke, J. T.
Affiliations
  • University of Birmingham (GB)
  • University Hospital Coventry (GB)
Corresponding author
Hardwicke, J.T.
Venue
Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-08
Volume
70
Issue
8
Pages
1083-1090
ISSN
1748-6815 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2615676316
Cited by
40
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 4
FWCI
0.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Plastic Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (submittedVersion)
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, postoperative complications, hematoma, surgical site infection, suture complications, scar formation, reoperation, recurrence
MeSH terms
Cicatrix, Ear, Hematoma, Humans, Pain, Pruritus, Reoperation, Surgical Wound Infection, Sutures, Wound Healing, Plastic Surgery Procedures, Dermatologic Surgical Procedures

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