Cited by 7Reconstructive Facial Surgery TechniquesNasal Surgery and Airway StudiesCongenital Ear and Nasal Anomalies

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Safety approach to otoplasty: a surgical algorithm.

Open access

Abstract

An algorithm was developed through an evolution of refinements in surgical technique with the goal to minimize risk and morbidity in otoplasty. Key principles were avoidance of cartilage incisions and transections and the use of multiple surgical techniques to distribute the "surgical load" evenly among these techniques. The present retrospective study was designed to test safety and efficacy of the concept in 100 consecutive patients and to discuss the results in light of the literature. Data detailing the surgery, preoperative, and postoperative period were extracted from the record and during patient interviews. Patients were contacted to complete a questionnaire to rate the postoperative pain and their satisfaction with the final outcome on a 6-point visual analog scale (VAS). An expert and a lay panel assessed preoperative and postoperative frontal-view photographs, using the same VAS. Pain in the postoperative was rated as minor (pain level VAS average score, 2.33) and patients' satisfaction was excellent (satisfaction level VAS average score, 1.82). The assessment by the panels of expert and lay evaluators paralleled these outcomes with a postoperative average VAS score of 1.69 and 1.87, respectively. Cartilage incision and transection can be effectively avoided in otoplasty. Even distribution of the surgical load among multiple techniques avoids the problems associated with "overload" of a single technique. The innovative technique of cortical mastoid drill-out is described. High satisfaction with the results, excellent patient comfort, and a favorable safety profile are associated with the present algorithm.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1055/s-0035-1555629

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 7

Metadata

Authors
Haubner, F., Kuehnel, T., Gassner, H., & Nunes, D.
Affiliations
  • University Hospital Regensburg (DE)
  • Klinikum Bremen-Mitte (DE)
Corresponding author
Nunes, Diogo
Venue
Facial Plastic Surgery
Published
2015-06-30
Volume
31
Issue
03
Pages
308-314
ISSN
  • 0736-6825 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-8793
OpenAlex
W2402807408
Cited by
7
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 1
FWCI
0.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • Facial Plastic Surgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • German Medical Science (German Research Foundation) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • University of Regensburg Publication Server (University of Regensburg) (acceptedVersion)
  • German Medical Science (German Research Foundation)
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, surgical algorithm, postoperative pain, patient satisfaction, aesthetic outcome assessment, ear deformity
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Algorithms, Child, Ear, Ear Cartilage, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pain Measurement, Postoperative Pain, Surveys and Questionnaires, Retrospective Studies, Patient Satisfaction, Plastic Surgery Procedures, Young Adult

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