Earfold Implantable Clip System for Correction of Prominent Ears: Analysis of Safety in 403 Patients
Open accessAbstract
Background: The Earfold system, a new treatment for the correction of prominent ears, consists of 3 components: the Earfold implant, the Earfold introducer, and the Prefold positioner. Methods: This is an interim report based on an ongoing analysis of safety in a series of patients treated for prominent ears with the Earfold implant between February 2013 and September 2014. Safety was assessed based on adverse event reports and the need for implant revision; follow-up is ongoing. Results: Seven surgeons used 1,200 Earfold implants to treat 403 patients (ages, 7–70 years; 63% male); the time since the initial implant procedure now ranges from 30 to 48 months. To date, 145 patients (36%) have returned for a follow-up visit (mean, 7.7 months [range, 1–34 months]). Adverse events requiring intervention have affected 39 of 403 (9.7%) patients; these include implant revisions (n = 17 [4.2%], most often due to implant visibility), skin erosion over the implant (n = 15 [3.7%]), and infection (n = 7 [1.7%]). Bleeding, recurrence of prominence, hematoma, deformity, or adverse scarring did not occur. Conclusions: This interim analysis has shown that Earfold prominent ear correction system is associated with relatively few adverse events that require intervention; a small number of patients experienced infection, implant extrusion, or implant visibility that required revision. Most adverse events were related to either patient selection or technical errors at implantation. It is expected that with continued use of Earfold by surgeons experienced in otoplasty, the adverse event incidence will decrease.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Nonsurgical approaches, such as newborn auricular molding, leverage early cartilage plasticity with promising outcomes.
“Nonsurgical approaches, such as newborn auricular molding, leverage early cartilage plasticity with promising outcomes.70–73”
From Otoplasty Surgical Techniques and Clinical Outcomes: A Practical Review (2026) · cites this paper as [70]
The Introduction describes correction with a permanent Earfold implant, and the Methods describe needle perforation to help cartilage conform to that implant. Neither those passages nor the Discussion passages address newborn auricular molding, early cartilage plasticity, or outcomes of nonsurgical molding (searched: newborn auricular molding; nonsurgical ear molding in infants). (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
The postauricular fascial flap as an adjunct to Mustardé and Furnas type otoplasty.
Horlock, N., Misra, A., & Gault, D. T. (2001) · Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery · doi:10.1097/00006534-200111000-00005 · Cited by 102 · see citing works
Braun, T., Hainzinger, T., Stelter, K., Krause, E., Berghaus, A., & Hempel, J. M. (2010) · Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery · doi:10.1097/prs.0b013e3181f449c7 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
Schlegel-Wagner, C., Pabst, G., Müller, W., & Linder, T. (2010) · Archives of Facial Plastic Surgery · doi:10.1001/archfaci.2010.34 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- [1]Kang NV Kerstein RL Treatment of prominent ears with an implantable clip system: a pilot study. Aesthet Surg J. 2016; 36: NP100 NP116. 26673575 PMC5127466
- [3]Jeffery SL Complications following correction of prominent ears: an audit review of 122 cases. Br J Plast Surg. 1999; 52: 588 590. 10658116
- [5]Sinha M Richard B Postauricular fascial flap and suture otoplasty: a prospective outcome study of 227 patients. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2012; 65: 367 371. 22071456
- [6]Olivier B Mohammad H Christian A Retrospective study of the long-term results of otoplasty using a modified Mustardé (cartilage-sparing) technique. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2009; 38: 340 347. 19476766
- [7]Mandal A Bahia H Ahmad T Comparison of cartilage scoring and cartilage sparing otoplasty—A study of 203 cases. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2006; 59: 1170 1176. 17046626
- [9]Sinno S Chang JB Thorne CH Precision in otoplasty: combining reduction otoplasty with traditional otoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015; 135: 1342 1348. 25919248
- [10]Cosmetic Surgery National Data Bank Statistics 2016. Available at: https://www.surgery.org/sites/default/files/ASAPS-Stats2016.pdf. Accessed June 28, 2017. PMC4954552 27069249
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Management of Congenital Auricular Anomalies.
Joukhadar, N., McKee, D., Caouette-Laberge, L., & Bezuhly, M. (2020) · Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery · doi:10.1097/prs.0000000000006997 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Otoplasty Surgical Techniques and Clinical Outcomes: A Practical Review
Kaleeny, J. D., & Janis, J. E. (2026) · Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open · doi:10.1097/gox.0000000000007404
- Authors
- Kang, N. V., Sojitra, N., Glumicic, S., Vlok, J. A., O’Toole, G., Hannan, S. A., & Sabbagh, W.
- Affiliations
- The Royal Free Hospital (GB)
- Glumicic Medical Group, Zagreb, Croatia.
- Corresponding author
- Kang, Norbert V.
- Sojitra, Nilesh
- O’Toole, Greg
- Hannan, S. Alam
- Sabbagh, Walid
- Venue
- Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open
- Published
- 2018-01
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- e1623
- ISSN
- 2169-7574 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC5811290
- OpenAlex
- W2783263160
- Cited by
- 9
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 1.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery Global Open (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Allergan
- 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, otoplasty, implant safety, adverse events, implant revision, implant extrusion, skin erosion, infection
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