Case Report: Unusual Complication Post Otoplasty

Otoplasty is very commonly used for the surgical correction of prominent ears. This procedure generally does not involve major complications. Pain and itching, hematoma and bleeding and infection are the most common complications generally observed in post otoplasty patients. We present a case of a 13 years old boy who showed abnormal swelling from the pre- to the post-auricular area throughout the temporal region one day after the surgery. This case is distinct as the swelling was without the involvement of active bleeding but hematoma like complication at the site of surgery. The investigations were undertaken and the probable cause for these unusual observations were most likely related to lymphatic malformation.

Otoplasty Morbidity

Background: Auricular deformities, specifically prominent ears are relatively frequent. Although the physiologic consequences are negligible, the aesthetic and psychological impact on a child’s self-image can be substantial. The purpose of our study was to examine the post-operative morbidity of otoplasty, analyse the revision rate and identify, if possible, a gold standard procedure. Methods: Retrospective analysis of the results of 104 operations for correction of prominent ears in 24 months that were performed in one NHSHospitalinLondon,UK. Complications were recorded and analysed. Cases requiring revision were reviewed further, according to technique, seniority of Surgeon and whether a trainee was supervised or not. Results: Of 104 patients, 57 were male and 47 were female. Age ranged from4to 60 years. Peak incidence for the primary operation was identified in the early adolescence for both sexes. Total skeletonisation of the cartilage was used in 26 patients (25%). The anterior scoring technique was used in 76 patients (73%). Cartilage holding sutures were used in 52 patients (50%). Complications were recorded in 32 patients, while 11 patients had more than one complications. There was no significant difference in the complication rate between the most popular methods. (Anterior scoring with or without holding sutures, not including Mustardé type, versus total cartilage skeletonisation technique). Conclusion: The multitude of different approaches indicates that there is not clearly definitive technique for correcting prominent ears. It is preferable that the surgeon is comfortable with multiple techniques (to tailor the correction to each individual patient and deformity).

Early experiences with the use of Earfold ^(TM) for correction of prominent ears

Aim: This paper describes the author's personal experience with using the minimally-invasive Earfold? implant. Methods: The author inserted the Earfold? implant into 19 patients (5 men, 14 women) between November 2016 and June 2018. Bilateral implantation was performed in 14 patients. In 5 cases, implantation was limited to one ear. The author's main indication for treatment was a helical-mastoid distance of more than 20 mm. Additional antihelixplasty of the upper ear was performed in 4 patients (2 primarily and 2 after explantation). One patient underwent simultaneous treatment of protruding ear lobes. Results: The overall satisfaction rate was high, with 16 patients (84%) being satisfied or very satisfied. The procedure proved to be rapid with little down-time in the recovery phase. The demand for, and acceptance of the procedure was high. Although surgical otoplasty was always discussed as an alternative, no patient who presented for consultation chose standard otoplasty surgery. Complications occurred in 6 patients and implants were removed in 5 patients, 1 of them completely. Conclusion: The EarfoldTM procedure is an interesting, minimally-invasive alternative to surgical otoplasty which produces results which patients are pleased with. However, in this early series, the complication rate was high. A hybrid technique might reduce the complications observed.