ARTICLE | BEST PRACTICE |


In children, and also recently in adults, the authors


use a short-term resorbable intracutaneous suture for wound closure for maximum patient comfort, so that the patient is spared from the sometimes painful removal of sutures.


Swathe Postoperatively, only a light swathe is necessary after otoplasty. The auricle can be covered with cotton, held by a light gauze bandage for a few days. To avoid trauma of the recently operated auricle, such as twisting, the authors recommend headband


wearing a during sleep for


2 weeks. In children especially, the swathe can have some protecting effect, but it is not intended to form the auricle, which is only achieved by adequate surgery. A bandage that is too compressing can put the final result at risk36


To avoid trauma of the recently operated auricle,


such as twisting, the authors recommend wearing a


headband during sleep for 2 weeks.


.


‘Incisionless’ otoplasty? Even less surgical invasiveness is promised by the


Ô incisionlessÕ otoplasty, as described by Michael H. Fritsch37


. The authorsÕ own experiences with this


method, which uses transcutaneously applied sutures with a subcutaneous course to form the auricle, are


References


1. Kapp-Simon KA, Simon DJ, Kristovich S. Self-perception, social skills, adjustment, and inhibition in young adolescents with craniofacial anomalies. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1992; 29(4): 352–6


2. Horlock N, Vögelin E, Bradbury ET, Grobbelaar AO, Gault DT. Psychosocial outcome of patients after ear reconstruction: a retrospective study of 62 patients. Ann Plast Surg 2005; 54(5): 517–24


3. Sheerin D, MacLeod M, Kusumakar V. Psychosocial adjustment in children with port-wine stains and prominent ears. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 1995; 34(12): 1637–47


4. Dion K, Berscheid E, Walster E. What is beautiful is good. J Pers Soc Psychol 1972; 24(3): 285–90


5. McCabe M, Marwit SJ. Depressive symptomatology, perceptions of attractiveness, and body image in children. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 1993; 34(7): 1117–24


6. Adamson PA, Strecker HD. Otoplasty techniques. Facial Plast Surg 1995; 11(4): 284–300


7. Kelley P, Hollier L, Stal S. Otoplasty: evaluation, technique, and review. J Craniofac Surg 2003; 14(5): 643–53


8. Bradbury ET, Hewison J, Timmons MJ. Psychological and social outcome of prominent ear correction in children. Br J Plast Surg 1992; 45(2): 97–100


9. Cooper-Hobson G, Jaffe W. The benefits of otoplasty for children: further evidence to satisfy the modern NHS. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2009; 62(2): 190–4


10. Klassen A, Jenkinson C, Fitzpatrick R, Goodacre T. Patients’ health related quality of life before and after aesthetic surgery. Br J Plast Surg 1996; 49(7): 433–8


11. Sarwer DB, Pertschuk MJ, Wadden TA, Whitaker LA. Psychological investigations in cosmetic surgery: a look back and a look ahead. Plast Reconstr Surg 1998; 101(4): 1136–42


12. Sarwer DB, Wadden TA, Pertschuk MJ, Whitaker LA. The psychology of cosmetic surgery: a review and


54 ❚ reconceptualization. Clin Psychol Rev 1998; 18(1): 1–22


13. Gasques JA, Pereira de Godoy JM, Cruz EM. Psychosocial effects of otoplasty in children with prominent ears. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2008; 32(6): 910–4


14. Schwentner I, Schmutzhard J, Deibl M, Sprinzl GM. Health-related quality of life outcome of adult patients after otoplasty. J Craniofac Surg 2006; 17(4): 629–35


15. Braun T, Hainzinger T, Stelter K, Kraus E, Berhaus A, Hempel JM. Health-related quality of life, patient benefit, and clinical outcome after otoplasty using suture techniques in 62 children and adults. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 126(6): 2115–24


16. Lam SM. Edward Talbot Ely: father of aesthetic otoplasty. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2004; 6(1): 64


17. Ely ET. An operation for prominence of the auricle. Arch Otolaryngol 1881; 10: 97–9


18. Joseph J. Demonstration operierter Eselsohren. Verl Berl Med Ges 1896


19. Gersuny R. Über einige kosmetische Operationen. Wien Med Wochenschr 1903; 48: 2253–7


20. Goldstein MA. The cosmetic and plastic surgery of the ear. Laryngoscope 1908; 18: 826–51


21. Luckett WH. A new operation for prominent ears based on the anatomy of the deformity. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1910; 10: 635–7


22. Becker OJ. Surgical correction of the abnormally protruding ear. Arch Otolaryngol 1949; 50(5): 541–60


23. Converse JM, Nigro A, Wilson FA, Johnson N. A technique for surgical correction of lop ears. Plast Reconstr Surg 1955; 15(5): 411–8


24. Chongchet V. A method of antihelix reconstruction. Br J Plast Surg 1963;16:268-72.


25. Stenström SJ. A “natural” technique for correction of congenitally prominent ears. Plast Reconstr Surg 1963; 32: 509–18


26. Mustarde JC. The correction of prominent ears using simple mattress sutures. Br J Plast Surg 1963; 16: 170–8


27. Morestin H. De la reposition et du plissement cosmétiques du pavillon de l’oreille. Rev d’orthopéd 1903; 4: 289


28. Weerda H. Surgery of the auricle. 2nd edn. Stuttgart/New York: Thieme, 2007


29. Furnas DW. Correction of prominent ears by conchamastoid sutures. Plast Reconstr Surg 1968; 42(3): 189–93


30. Siegert R. Correction of the lobule. Facial Plast Surg 2004; 20(4): 293–8


31. Limandjaja GC, Breugem CC, Mink van der Molen AB, Kon B. Complications of otoplasty: a literature review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2009; 62(1): 19–27


32. Berghaus A, Braun T, Hempel JM. Revision otoplasty —how to manage the disastrous result. Arch Facial Plast Surg [in press]


33. Adamson PA, McGraw BL, Tropper GJ. Otoplasty: critical review of clinical results. Laryngoscope 1991; 101(8): 883–8


34. Mandal A, Bahia H, Ahmad T, Stewart KJ. Comparison of cartilage scoring and cartilage sparing otoplasty--A study of 203 cases. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2006; 59(11): 1170–6


35. Wodak E. Über die Stellung und Form der menschlichen Ohrmuschel. Arch Klin Exp Ohren Nasen Kehlkopfheilkd 1967; 188(2): 331–5.


36. Simo R, Jones NS. Head bandaging following otoplasty-- how we do it. J Laryngol Otol 1994; 108(5): 410–2


37. Fritsch MH. Incisionless otoplasty. Laryngoscope 1995; 105(5 Pt 3 Suppl 70): 1–11


 Declaration of interest None  Figure images 1 and 2 ç A. Berghaus and T. Braun


heterogeneous and have only partially convinced us in favour of this procedure. Form and position of the concha cavum are much harder to control than when using an open technique. Furthermore, Fritsch recommends weakening the cartilage by repeated penetration with a hollow needle, which is again a rather aggressive treatment of the auricle. Therefore, the access via a postauricular incision, but without any skin resections, seems more favourable.


Conclusions In recent years, a clear trend can be seen in otoplasty in favour of less aggressive operation techniques, which has also been made possible by the availability of modern biocompatible suture materials.


April/May 2012 | prime-journal.com


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84