ReviewPlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2026
Otoplasty Surgical Techniques and Clinical Outcomes: A Practical Review.
Review in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Objective Auricular Measurements and Patient Satisfaction Following Cartilage-Cutting Otoplasty Using Fascioperichondrial Flaps.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Otoplasty corrects auricular deformities, which affect 5%-10% of the global population and can significantly impact psychological well-being, especially in children. This review examined various otoplasty surgical techniques, clinical outcomes, complications, and emerging innovations, with a focus on prominent ear correction. Methods: A literature search was conducted in November 2024 on PubMed/MEDLINE and Web of Science using the query "otoplasty," identifying 1397 studies from 1915 to 2024. Studies were included if they detailed operative techniques, patient data (population >30), and mastoid-to-helical rim measurements. Exclusions included nonhuman studies, case reports, and incomplete data. Data extracted study characteristics, operative techniques, and complication rates. The Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine framework classified studies by evidence level. Results: Eighteen studies with 1590 patients and 3060 ears were included. The average patient age was 16.0 years, with a mean follow-up of 24.5 months. The average preoperative mastoid-to-helical rim measurement was 27.1 mm, reduced to 15.4 mm postoperatively. Suture extrusion (5.4%) was the most common complication. Meta-analysis showed a pooled recurrence rate of 2.8% and revision rate of 2.1%. Cartilage-sparing techniques, as well as 4-0 polypropylene (Prolene) and 4-0 braided polyester (Ethibond) cartilage fixation sutures, showed favorable outcomes. Conclusions: This review summarizes decades of research, highlighting effective techniques such as modified Mustardé-Furnas methods and cartilage-sparing approaches. Innovations and advancements in otoplasty, such as lasers, minimally invasive surgery, and postoperative care, demonstrate the field's evolution. Future research should focus on refining techniques and exploring animal models to improve otoplasty procedures.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.