CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 16Reconstructive Facial Surgery TechniquesNasal Surgery and Airway StudiesCongenital Ear and Nasal Anomalies

Comparison of two incisionless otoplasty techniques for prominent ears in children.

Haytoglu, Suheyl, Haytoglu, Tahir Gokhan, Bayar Muluk, Nuray, Kuran, Gokhan, Arikan, Osman Kursat·2015·International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology
DOI 10.1016/j.ijporl.2015.01.014
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objectives In the present study, we applied two incisionless suture techniques for otoplasty: Haytoglu et al.'s modification of incisionless otoplasty technique and Fritsch's incisionless otoplasty technique for correction of prominent ears.Methods In this prospective study, 60 patients with prominent ears were included in the study. In Group 1, 55 ears of 30 patients (25 bilateral and 5 unilateral) were operated with Haytoglu et al.'s modification of incisionless otoplasty technique. In Group 2, 57 ears of 30 patients (27 bilateral and 3 unilateral) were operated with Fritsch's incisionless otoplasty technique. For comparison of two methods, auriculocephalic distances were measured at three levels which were level 1 (the most superior point of the auricle), level 2 (the midpoint of the auricle) and level 3 (level of the lobule) pre-operatively (preop); and measurements were repeated at the end of the surgery (PO(0-day)), 1st month (PO(1-Mo)) and 6th month (PO(6-Mo)) after the surgery, in both groups. Patient satisfaction was evaluated using a visual analog scale (VAS). Moreover, Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) was rated by an independent, non-participating plastic surgeon at 6 months after the surgery.Results Operation time was 15.9±5.6min in Group 1 (Haytoglu et al.'s) and 19±4.7min in Group 2 (Fritsch). Hematoma, infection, bleeding, keloid scar formation, sharp edges or irregularities of the cartilage were not observed in any group. Suture extrusion was detected in 14.03% of Group 1 and 16.1% of Group 2. No statistically significant difference was observed between auriculocephalic distances at levels 1-3 of groups at preop, PO(0-day), PO(1-Mo) and PO(6-Mo) separately. Similarly, difference in auriculocephalic distances (preop values-PO(6-Mo) values) was not detected as statistically significant in Groups 1 and 2 at three levels. In both techniques, No statistically significant difference was observed in patient satisfaction at 6th months after the operation which was measured using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) on 0 to 100 scales. According to GAIS, the patients were rated as 92.9% "improved" and 7.1% "no change" in Group 1; as 94.6% "improved" and 5.4% "no change" in Group 2.Conclusions Due to the similar results, Haytoglu et al.'s and Fritsch's incisionless otoplasty techniques are good options in the treatment of prominent ears, especially in pediatric patients with isolated inadequate development of antihelical ridge, and with soft auricular cartilage.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijporl.2015.01.014

Cites

27 of 27 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

1 of the 28 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Haytoglu, S., Haytoglu, T. G., Bayar Muluk, N., Kuran, G., & Arikan, O. K.
Venue
International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-04
Volume
79
Issue
4
Pages
504-510
ISSN
0165-5876 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.ijporl.2015.01.014
OpenAlex
W2041175110
Cited by
16
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1
FWCI
2.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology (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
prominent ears, suture extrusion, patient satisfaction, Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale, children, postoperative outcomes, scar complications, operative time, aesthetic outcome assessment
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Child, Child, Preschool, Ear Cartilage, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Prospective Studies, Suture Techniques, Treatment Outcome, Patient Satisfaction, Plastic Surgery Procedures, Ear Auricle, Operative Time

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