Predictors for Unfavorable Projection of the Constructed Auricle following Ear Elevation Surgery in Microtia Reconstruction

Kyeong-Tae Lee,Kap Sung Oh,Lee, Kyeong-Tae,Oh, Kap Sung
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000004234
2019-10-03
Abstract:Background: Nagata’s two-stage technique for microtia reconstruction using autologous costal cartilage consists of the implantation of a fabricated cartilage framework and the elevation of the constructed auricle. Achieving long-lasting, sufficient projection of the auricle is a goal of second-stage surgery; however, unfavorable outcomes have been seen in some patients, with suboptimal long-term elevation. The present study aimed to investigate prognostic factors that might contribute to adverse outcomes following the ear elevation operation. Methods: Outcomes of patients with congenital microtia who underwent auricular reconstruction with a modified Nagata technique between January of 2007 and June of 2015 were reviewed. Unfavorable elevation was defined as cases with an auriculocephalic angle less than 20 degrees or with a shallow auricular sulcus requiring revision operations. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to identify independent predictors for the unfavorable elevation. Results: A total of 309 patients representing 323 cases were analyzed with a median follow-up period of 26 months. The mean age of the patients was 15.1 years. The majority of cases had lobule-type microtia. Hemifacial microsomia was present in 114 cases. Canalplasty was performed in 117 cases before the auricular elevation. Unfavorable elevation was observed in 72 cases (22.3 percent). Multivariate analyses showed that the presence of hemifacial microsomia and performance of canalplasty less than or equal to 12 months before the ear elevation operation were independent risk factors for the unfavorable elevation. Conclusion: Several preoperative factors, including combined anomalies and operative timing and sequences, might influence the outcomes of the ear elevation operation. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, III.
surgery
What problem does this paper attempt to address?