Efficacy Analysis of Ear Molding Correction for Congenital Auricular Deformities at Different Ages.

Lu Liu, Min Liu, You Xu, Lang Xu

Abstract readComparative Study

In one paragraph

Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

1citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

An Interpretable Deep Learning System for Fine-Grained Classification and Longitudinal Tracking of Neonatal Auricular Deformities.Biology · 2026
Article

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Lu LiuDepartment of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Chengdu Women's and Children's Central Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, 611731, China.

Min LiuDepartment of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Chengdu Women's and Children's Central Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, 611731, China.

You XuDepartment of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Chengdu Women's and Children's Central Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, 611731, China.

Lang XuDepartment of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Chengdu Women's and Children's Central Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, 611731, China. 164344093@qq.com.ORCID 0009-0009-2143-9104

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the clinical outcomes of ear molding correction in children with congenital auricular deformities at different ages, explore the optimal timing and latest time window for ear molding correction.

methodsThis retrospective study analyzed data from children with congenital auricular deformities who underwent ear molding correction in our department from January 2021 to June 2024. Children were divided into four groups based on their ages at initial treatment: Group A (≤21 days) , Group B (22-42 days) , Group C (43-90 days) , and Group D (≥91 days) . The success rate, treatment duration, and incidence of complications were compared among the four groups.

resultsThe success rates in Groups A, B, and C were comparable and significantly higher than in Group D (p < 0.05). Notably, the success rate for correcting cryptotia was 100% across all groups. Treatment duration was shortest in Group A (p < 0.05), while there were no statistically significant differences in complication rates among the four groups (p > 0.05).

conclusionThe optimal timing for ear molding correction in children with congenital auricular deformities is within 21 days after birth, ensuring the highest efficiency and shortest treatment duration. If this optimal period is missed, correction within 90 days remains a viable option. Children with cryptotia older than 90 days still respond well to corrective treatment, but the latest age for treatment has not yet been determined. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

Indexed as

Congenital AbnormalitiesCongenital MicrotiaEar AuricleEar, ExternalPlastic Surgery ProceduresAge FactorsChildChild, PreschoolFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMaleRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeAgeCongenital auricular deformityCorrectionEar molding

Identifiers

PMID40970950

DOI10.1097/PRS.0000000000006057

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.