CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 228Reconstructive Facial Surgery TechniquesCongenital Ear and Nasal AnomaliesCraniofacial Disorders and Treatments

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Psychosocial Outcome of Patients After Ear Reconstruction: A Retrospective Study of 62 Patients

Horlock, Nigel, V??gelin, Esther, Bradbury, Eileen T., Grobbelaar, Adriaan O., Gault, David T.·2005·Annals of Plastic Surgery
DOI 10.1097/01.sap.0000155284.96308.32
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This was a retrospective study examining the psychosocial morbidity of patients before and after ear reconstruction. Semistructured questionnaires were sent to 90 patents with significant congenital or acquired auricular deformity 2.2 years (range 3 months to 5 years) following autogenous or osteointegrated reconstruction. Sixty-two patients (69%) responded. Twenty-two of the patients below 12 years, who had undergone reconstructive surgery, also completed the Childhood Experience Questionnaire. These were compared with a cohort of 362 normal patients. There was significant psychosocial morbidity in both children and adults with auricular deformity. Seventy-one percent of patients reported reduced self-confidence that affected both social life and leisure activity. Teasing was a prominent symptom in both children (88%) and adults (85%) but was a motivational factor for surgery in children only. Dissatisfaction with the appearance (73.1%), on the other hand, was the main reason for treatment in adults. Following ear reconstruction, 74% of adults and 91% of children reported an improvement in self-confidence resulting in enhanced social life and leisure activities in both adults and children. There was no difference between osteointegrated and autogenous reconstruction. Sixty percent of patients reported their result as excellent. The patients scored their result better than the surgeon. We conclude that auricular reconstruction has significant psychosocial benefit in the majority of children and adults despite donor-site morbidity and a range of technical result.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/01.sap.0000155284.96308.32

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 28 references

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Broder, 1989, Cleft Palate J, 26, 114
  2. Kapp Simon, 1992, Cleft Palate Craniofac J, 29, 352, 10.1597/1545-1569_1992_029_0352_spssaa_2.3.co_2 · DOI
  3. Speltz, 1993, Cleft Palate Craniofac J, 30, 482, 10.1597/1545-1569_1993_030_0482_pfocwc_2.3.co_2 · DOI
  4. Bradbury, 1993, ACPP Rev Newsletter, 15, 1
  5. Endriga, 1999, Cleft Palate Craniofac J, 36, 3, 10.1597/1545-1569_1999_036_0001_piiccs2.3.co_2 · DOI
  6. Pillemer, 1989, Cleft Lip Palate J, 26, 201

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–227 of 227

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Horlock, N., V??gelin, E., Bradbury, E. T., Grobbelaar, A. O., & Gault, D. T.
Affiliations
  • Mount Vernon Hospital (GB)
  • Withington Community Hospital (GB)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
Corresponding author
Horlock, Nigel
ORCID
Grobbelaar, Adriaan O.
Venue
Annals of Plastic Surgery
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2005-05
Volume
54
Issue
5
Pages
517-524
ISSN
0148-7043 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1097/01.sap.0000155284.96308.32
OpenAlex
W2030894590
Cited by
228
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 7
FWCI
3.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annals of Plastic Surgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Reconstructive Facial Surgery Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Genetics (clinical) › Congenital Ear and Nasal Anomalies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Craniofacial Disorders and Treatments
Keywords
ear reconstruction, psychosocial outcomes, ear deformity, congenital ear anomalies, self-confidence, teasing, appearance dissatisfaction, donor site morbidity, patient satisfaction
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Child, Child, Preschool, Ear Deformities, Acquired, Ear, External, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Leisure Activities, Male, Middle Aged, Motivation, Surveys and Questionnaires, Retrospective Studies, Self Concept, Patient Satisfaction, Plastic Surgery 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