Abstract:It is a great pleasure and honor to have been invited as a guest editor of this volume of Facial Plastic Surgery . The topic of otoplasty and ear reconstruction is fascinating and, like many other procedures in our specialty, subject to change, difference in opinions, and multiple ways of trying to achieve the best results. Prominent ears are the most common congenital deformity of the head and neck area. Its incidence is 5% in Caucasians as an autosomal dominant trait, but the incidence of auricular deformities has been estimated to be as high as 47% if all births.[1] [2] A common but erroneous belief held by many health practitioners is that the majority ear deformities detected in newborns will correct themselves with time. In truth, only a third of these deformities will self-correct.[3] Another misconception is that these minor cosmetic defects will cause minimal psychological effects or problems of adjustment. In fact, MacGregor has shown that patients with deformities that provoked laughter were objects of ridicule or derogatory nicknames, and the psychological impact was marked.[4] The term otoplasty refers to any surgical procedure that has as its goal the creation of a normal looking ear and restoration of the normal relationship between the auricle and the head.[1] This type of operation has been performed, in a variety of different ways, for over a thousand years. The earliest descriptions are found in the writings of Shusruta in ancient India in the 7 th century and in Bologna in the 16 th century. It was Dieffenbach, in 1845, that reported on an otoplasty geared toward the correction of a prominent ear. He described a postauricular skin excision to set the pinna back.[5] Surgeons have modified and attempted a variety of different operations to achieve this goal. During the later part of the 19 th century and the early part of the 20 th century, the majority of the techniques were based on skin excisions and cartilage incisions in different parts of the ear attempting to correct the prominence of the ear and the recreation of the antihelical fold.[6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] In 1958, Gibson and Davis noted that making relaxing incisions in the cartilage resulted in bending of the cartilage to the opposite side.[13] In 1963, Stenstrom described scoring the anterior surface of the cartilage that facilitated the posterior plication and formation of the new antihelix.[14] These techniques certainly improved on the earlier operations, but surgeons began noticing problems such as high recurrence rates, scarring, and sharp antihelical borders.[15] [16] Less invasive techniques were introduced by Mustarde in 1963 and Furnas in 1968 who used suture-based techniques to recreate the antihelical fold and reposition the concha onto the mastoid periosteum respectively.[17] [18] Fritsch was the first to describe the incisionless otoplasty technique in 1992.[19] This procedure has been further modified by him and other authors to simplify it and make it more versatile in treating a wider array of ear deformities.[20] [21] [22] [23] [24] In this issue, I have tried to compile a variety of otoplasty techniques that are preferred by the different authors, different points of view in microtia reconstruction, a chapter on traumatic ear injuries, one of nonsurgical and early management of ear deformities and one on the management of complications. I trust you will enjoy and find this useful. Article published online: 24 October 2024 © 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved. Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc. 333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

[Reconstructive otoplasty: differentiated approach to rib cartilage processing and ear framework formation using carving technique].

Aesthetic & Reconstructive Otoplasty

The psychosocial consequences of reconstruction of severe ear defects or third-degree microtia with rib cartilage

Modified 2-Stage Method for Auricular Reconstruction

Cartilage-sparing otoplasty – 288 ears in 3 years

Ear Reconstruction: Empirical Data of 406 Cases of Carving the Convex Structures of the Framework

Fused deposition modelling of an auricle framework for microtia reconstruction based on CT images

Porous Polyethylene Implant and Rib Cartilage in Ear Reconstruction: A Comparison

Optimal surgical timing for ear reconstruction with autologous cartilage: Analysis of the computed tomography scan characteristics of the ribs

Strategies for ear elevation and the treatment of relevant complications in autologous cartilage microtia reconstruction

Two stage ear/microtia reconstruction using costal cartilage

Auricular reconstruction for microtia: personal 6-year experience based on 350 microtia ear reconstructions in China

A Modified Technique for Firm Elevation of the Reconstructed Auricle

Auricular reconstruction for microtia: A review of available methods

Autologous Ear Reconstruction and 3D Printing, an Innovative Hybrid Surgical-engineering Reconstructive Approach for Custom-made Ear Models: Our Experience

Tissue Engineering Auricular Cartilage: A Review of Auricular Cartilage Characteristics and Current Techniques for Auricular Reconstruction

Advancements in the treatment of unfavorable auricular reconstruction

Modification of the cartilaginous framework for autologous ear reconstruction: Construction of a stable complete ring framework with grander highs and lows

New Strategies for Remnant Ear Treatment in Lobule-Type Microtia Reconstruction

Classification of Microtia With Unusable Remnant Ear and Techniques in the First Stage of Two-Stage Auricular Reconstruction

Fifty free flaps from the ear