Cited by 26Reconstructive Facial Surgery TechniquesCongenital Ear and Nasal AnomaliesCraniofacial Disorders and Treatments

Anthropometric research of congenital auricular deformities for newborns

Zhao, Hui, Lin, Guanfeng, Seong, Yong Hae, Shi, Jin, Xu, Jing, Huang, Wenhua·2019·The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine

Abstract

Objective This study aimed to get the data of Neonatal auricle for helping pediatricians and obstetricians to make definite diagnosis and individualized treatment for newborn congenital auricular deformities in China.Methods A total of 1500 newborns’ ears were evaluated in this study. Six surface measurements were performed directly on the auricles of the subjects as follows: physiognomic ear length and breadth, morphological ear length and breadth, cephalo-auricular distance, and cephalo otic angle.Results The incidence of neonatal auricular deformities in the Pearl River Delta area was 57.47% and the self-healing rate was 31.61% by the 30-day follow-up. There were significant differences between different types of auricular deformities (protruding ear, cup ear, lop ear, Stahl’s ear, conchal crus, helical rim deformity, and composite deformity) and normal morphological differences of the auricle.Conclusions Our findings suggested that individual differences in ear morphology are large and there were some differences between measurement data in our study and EarWell. Application of the EarWell system may lead to localized skin excoriations or breakdown as a result of mismatch with the ear. Therefore, early use of personalized ear molds produced by three-dimensional printing to determine if more deformed auricles may be corrected.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/14767058.2017.1402877

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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.

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?

  • Helical-mastoid distance has proved to vary between populations and not be applicable to other anomalies.

    “Although some articles6,32,37 tried implementing helical-mastoid distance to objectify assessment of prominent ears, this measurement has proved to vary between populations and not be applicable to other anomalies.58”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhao, H., Lin, G., Seong, Y. H., Shi, J., Xu, J., & Huang, W.
Affiliations
  • Southern Medical University (CN)
  • GNG Hospital, Seoul, Korea
  • Nanfang Hospital (CN)
Corresponding author
Huang, Wenhua
Venue
The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine
Published
2017-12-08
Volume
32
Issue
7
Pages
1176-1183
ISSN
  • 1476-4954 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-7058
OpenAlex
W2773407909
Cited by
26
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2
FWCI
1.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Science and Technology Planning Project of Guangdong Province, China (2014A020212176, 2014B090901055, 2015B010125005, 2016B090917001)
  • Project of South Wisdom Valley, China (2015CXTD05)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Reconstructive Facial Surgery Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Genetics › Congenital Ear and Nasal Anomalies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Craniofacial Disorders and Treatments
Keywords
congenital auricular deformities, anthropometry, protruding ears, lop ear, incidence, three-dimensional printing, Pearl River Delta
MeSH terms
Anthropometry, China, Humans, Infant, Newborn, Craniofacial Abnormalities, Ear Auricle

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