Otoplasty outcomes with different suture materials in a rabbit model.
Abstract
Otoplasty is a commonly performed procedure to correct prominent ears. Many different otoplasty techniques have been described but there is no gold standard technique. As well, many different suture materials are used in otoplasty but studies directly comparing different sutures materials are lacking. An otoplasty outcome study with Nylon and Mersilene (2 of the most commonly used sutures in otoplasty) sutures was conducted using a rabbit model. Each rabbit ear was randomized to receive a Mustardé-type horizontal mattress suture with either 4-0 clear Nylon (N = 12 ears) or 4-0 Mersilene sutures (N = 12 ears). Two weeks after surgery, the auricular bend angle was measured with a finger goniometer and histologic analysis with hematoxylin and eosin staining was performed on the rabbit auricular cartilage. Overall, there was no significant difference in the mean bend angle between the 2 groups (Nylon: 135.8°, SD = 22.7° and Mersilene: 143.2°, SD = 19.7°; P = 0.559). Also, no qualitative difference was observed on histologic analysis between the 2 suture groups. In the current rabbit model study, both Nylon and Mersilene sutures performed well and no significant differences were noted.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Prolene and Nylon sutures performed comparably to more expensive alternatives.
“Prolene and Nylon sutures, favored for smooth handling and low tissue reactivity, performed comparably to more expensive alternatives.100,101”
From Otoplasty Surgical Techniques and Clinical Outcomes: A Practical Review (2026) · cites this paper as [100]
Cites
Adamson, P. A., & Litner, J. A. (2007) · Otolaryngologic Clinics of North America · doi:10.1016/j.otc.2006.11.006 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Ossification in the elastic cartilage of the ear
Lister, G. (1969) · British journal of surgery · doi:10.1002/bjs.1800560522 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Holden, P. K., Chlebicki, C., & Wong, B. J. F. (2009) · Archives of Facial Plastic Surgery · doi:10.1001/archfaci.2009.17 · Cited by 26 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Habal, MD model have used similar timelines to assess the stability of the auricle.(4,11) Another reason for the relatively short study period was that the aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of the suture materials themselves holding the auricle in position and not the long-term fibrosis and scarring.”
MethodOtoplasty: a review of the surgical techniques
Richards, S. D., Jebreel, A., & Capper, R. (2005) · Clinical Otolaryngology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2273.2004.00939.x · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Histomorphology of Neochondrogenesis After Antihelical Fold Creation
Weinzweig, N., Chen, L., & Sullivan, W. G. (1994) · Annals of Plastic Surgery · doi:10.1097/00000637-199410000-00003 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Holden, P. K., Chlebicki, C. A., & Wong, B. J. F. (2009) · Archives of Facial Plastic Surgery · doi:10.1001/archfacial.2009.17 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Comparison of otoplasty outcomes using different types of suture materials.
Maslauskas, K., Aštrauskas, T., Vikšraitis, S., & Samsanavidius, D. (2010) · PubMed · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Thorne, C. H. M. (2008) · Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery · doi:10.1097/prs.0b013e31817879d3 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Comparison of Otoplasty Techniques in the Rabbit Model
Rohrich, R. J., Friedman, R. M., & Liland, D. L. (1995) · Annals of Plastic Surgery · doi:10.1097/00000637-199501000-00009 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
A long-term morphometric analysis of auricular position post-otoplasty
Graham, M. E., Bezuhly, M., & Hong, P. (2013) · Journal of Plastic Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2013.06.043 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Permanence of Otoplasty in the Rabbit Ear: A Comparison of Techniques
DeMars, R. V., Schenden, M. J., Manders, E. K., et al. (1984) · Annals of Plastic Surgery · doi:10.1097/00000637-198409000-00004 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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
- Taylor, B. A., & Hong, P.
- Affiliations
- Dalhousie University (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Hong, Paul
- ORCID
- Hong, Paul
- Venue
- Journal of Craniofacial Surgery
- Published
- 2016-03
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 477-479
- ISSN
- 1049-2275 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2295915735
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 11
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 0.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Craniofacial Surgery (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Reconstructive Facial Surgery Techniques
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Surgical Sutures and Adhesives
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Nasal Surgery and Airway Studies
- Keywords
- otoplasty, prominent ears, suture materials, nylon suture, auricular cartilage, horizontal mattress suture, rabbit model, suture material comparison
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Biocompatible Materials, Ear Cartilage, Ear, External, Male, Nylons, Polyethylene Terephthalates, Rabbits, Random Allocation, Sutures, Pliability, Plastic Surgery Procedures, Models, Animal
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
