CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 74Reconstructive Facial Surgery TechniquesNasal Surgery and Airway StudiesCongenital Ear and Nasal Anomalies

Health-related quality of life, patient benefit, and clinical outcome after otoplasty using suture techniques in 62 children and adults.

Braun, Thomas, Hainzinger, Thomas, Stelter, Klaus, Krause, Eike, Berghaus, Alexander, Hempel, John Martin·2010·Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
DOI 10.1097/prs.0b013e3181f449c7
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The available medical literature lacks data about the effect of otoplasty on health-related quality of life. METHODS: In the present study, 84 patients, having received otoplasty using a suture technique, were asked to answer validated questionnaires (the Glasgow Benefit Inventory and the Glasgow Children's Benefit Inventory, respectively); Glasgow Benefit Inventory and Glasgow Children's Benefit Inventory scores can range from -100 (maximal adverse effect) through 0 (no effect) to 100 (maximal positive effect). RESULTS: Sixty-two patients (73.8 percent) returned a valid questionnaire. For the adults' cohort (n=21), the mean total Glasgow Benefit Inventory score was 30.6; 100.0 percent were satisfied with the aesthetic result, and 90.5 percent would again decide in favor of the operation. For the children's cohort (n=41), the mean total Glasgow Children's Benefit Inventory score was 24.1; 95.1 percent of the parents and 95.1 percent of the children were satisfied with the aesthetic result; and 97.6 percent of the parents and 92.7 percent of the children would again decide in favor of the operation. The health-related quality of life was elevated in 95.2 percent of the adults and 95.1 percent of the children. The additional compilation of clinical outcome parameters and complications confirmed the effectiveness and safety of an otoplasty using suture techniques. CONCLUSION: Otoplasty using suture techniques can significantly increase patients' health-related quality of life and leads to a high rate of patient satisfaction.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/prs.0b013e3181f449c7

Cites

19 of 19 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.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Braun, T., Hainzinger, T., Stelter, K., Krause, E., Berghaus, A., & Hempel, J. M.
Affiliations
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
ORCID
Venue
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2010-12
Volume
126
Issue
6
Pages
2115-2124
ISSN
0032-1052 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1097/prs.0b013e3181f449c7
OpenAlex
W1990700484
Cited by
74
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 8
FWCI
7.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery (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
otoplasty, suture technique, health-related quality of life, patient satisfaction, Glasgow Benefit Inventory, pediatric otoplasty, cosmetic surgery outcomes, postoperative complications
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Child, Child, Preschool, Decision Making, Ear, External, Esthetics, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sex Factors, Suture Techniques, 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