RESUMO
Objective:To compare the pros and cons of harvesting ear cartilage through anterior and posterior auricular approaches during rhinoplasty.Methods:From January 2017 to December 2018, 63 patients with otochondral rhinoplasty in our hospital were enrolled in this study, 60 were female and 3 were male; the average age was 31.6 years (range, 18 to 43) . They were randomly divided into anterior auricular approach group with 32 cases (64 sides) and posterior auricular approach group with 31 cases (62 sides). Surgical duration, complications and postoperative scar of the two methods were analyzed.Results:The average time for harvesting the ear cartilage through posterior auricular approach and anterior auricular approach was (20.8±1.7) min and (12.6±1.1) min, respectively ( P<0.01). The overall complication rate was 15.6% for posterior auricular approach group and 4.8% for anterior auricular approach group. The wound healed well in both groups, and there was no significant difference in postoperative scar between the two groups during an average 13 months follow-up period. Conclusions:While both the anterior and the posterior auricular approaches present with similar inconspicuous scarring, the use of anterior auricular approach alone to harvest ear cartilage during rhinoplasty provides both the surgeons and the patients with easier access, shorter surgical duration, and fewer complications. Hence, we believe that the anterior auricular approach possesses greater advantages than the posterior auricular approach.