ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Earlobe stretching is a common body modification typically performed in individuals under 30 years old. Individuals may later desire restoration of a natural earlobe contour. There is a paucity of literature regarding technique and outcomes for repair of the gauged earlobe defect. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The primary aim of this study was to provide a strategy to assess stretched earlobe defects and choose between the repair techniques of de-epithelialization and closure or excision and rotation. The secondary aim of this study was to evaluate complication rates of the two techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of all patients who underwent repair of stretched (gauged) earlobes at a single institution from 2012 to 2019. Patient demographics, maximum earlobe size, motivation for seeking repair, surgical technique, and complication rate were recorded. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients underwent stretched earlobe repair. The average age was 25.9 years old; 60.0% of the patients were male. Defects repaired with de-epithelialization and closure had been stretched to an average of 12.4 (SD = 3.2) mm compared to 29.3 (SD = 10.9) mm for excision and rotation. The minor complication rate was 12.5% with de-epithelialization and 10.8% for excision and rotation. Motivations for seeking repair included a desire to look more professional for work (34.0%), personal preference (30.0%), and joining the military (23.0%). CONCLUSION: Smaller earlobe defects (<15 mm) with nonptotic lobules can be repaired with de-epithelialization and primary closure, whereas larger earlobes (>15.0 mm) with ptotic lobules require excision and rotation. Stretched earlobe repair is a well-tolerated procedure, although a significant number of patients will require minor revisions.
ABSTRACT
IMPORTANCE: Otoplasty is performed to correct prominauris, one of the most common head and neck congenital deformities. Advances in combination hybrid approaches enable surgeons to achieve greater precision and accuracy. OBJECTIVE: To describe a hybrid cartilage-modifying approach and evaluate the procedure's effectiveness and safety. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Medical record review including patients undergoing otoplasty by the present technique from January 2006 to December 2016 as performed by the senior author at a tertiary academic referral center. Twenty-three patients underwent 24 total procedures including both bilateral (n = 17) and unilateral (n = 7) procedures. Two procedures were revisions. INTERVENTIONS: Hybrid cartilage-modifying otoplasty procedure. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Preoperative and postoperative measurements were recorded. Paired sample t testing was performed to assess changes between preoperative superior, middle, and inferior helical measurements and corresponding postoperative measurements for all operated ears. Two-tailed, independent sample t testing was performed to compare postoperative differences between right and left ears within separate superior, middle, and inferior measurements in patients undergoing bilateral otoplasty. RESULTS: Twenty-four surgeries were performed on 23 patients. The mean (SD) age at surgery was 16.3 (13.6) years with 13 patients (58%) between the ages of 4 and 10 years. Preoperatively, the mean (SD) superior, middle, and inferior helical rim-to-mastoid distance of the 41 discrete ears measured 16.5 (3.1) mm, 24.1 (3.8) mm, and 19.3 (4.4) mm, respectively. Mean (SD) postoperative measurements were 12.1 (2.4) mm, 14.7 (2.5) mm, and 14.0 (2.8) mm, respectively, for mean (SD) decreases of 4.4 (2.7) mm, 9.4 (3.4) mm, and 5.3 (3.6) mm. For the 17 bilateral procedures, the mean (standard error) postoperative scores between ears measured 0.7 (0.9) mm for the superior, 0.5 (0.9) mm for the middle, and 0.2 (1.0) mm for the inferior. The unaffected ear was measured in 4 of 7 (57%) of patients undergoing unilateral otoplasty, and the mean (SD) postoperative differences between left and right ears were 1.3 (0.8) mm, 3.0 (1.2) mm, and 1.0 (0.7) mm for the superior, middle, and inferior, respectively. Preoperative-to-postoperative differences for all ears (n = 41) were significant (P < .001 for all) for superior, middle, and inferior measurements. There were no significant absolute differences identified for superior (P = .41), middle (P = .58), and inferior (P = .88) measurements regarding left vs right postoperative comparisons for bilateral otoplasties. One patient undergoing bilateral repair required subsequent revision surgery of 1 ear. Two patients developed chronic suture site irritation, and 1 patient developed a hematoma. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The present technique allows multiple opportunities to adjust the auricular parameters. The results indicate a low revision rate and high degree of symmetry. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.
