Auricular Reconstruction: Indications for Autogenous and Prosthetic Techniques
- 15 April 2001
- journal article
- cme
- Published by Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
- Vol. 107 (5), 1241-1251
- https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-200104150-00024
Abstract
Learning Objectives: After studying this article, the participant should be able to: 1. Describe the alternatives for auricular reconstruction. 2. Discuss the pros and cons of autogenous reconstruction of total or subtotal auricular defects. 3. Enumerate the indications for prosthetic reconstruction of total or subtotal auricular defects. 4. Understand the complexity of and the expertise required for prosthetic reconstruction of auricular defects. The indications for autogenous auricular reconstruction versus prosthetic reconstruction with osseointegrated implant-retained prostheses were outlined in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery in 1994 by Wilkes et al. of Canada, but because of the relatively recent Food and Drug Administration approval (1995) of extraoral osseointegrated implants, these indications had not been examined by a surgical unit in the United States. The purpose of this article is to present an evolving algorithm based on an experience with 98 patients who underwent auricular reconstruction over a 10-year period. From this experience, the authors conclude that autogenous reconstruction is the procedure of choice in the majority of pediatric patients with microtia. Prosthetic reconstruction of the auricle is considered in such pediatric patients with congenital deformities for the following three relative indications: (1) failed autogenous reconstruction, (2) severe soft-tissue/skeletal hypoplasia, and/or (3) a low or unfavorable hairline. A fourth, and in our opinion the ideal, indication for prosthetic ear reconstruction is the acquired total or subtotal auricular defect, most often traumatic or ablative in origin, which is usually encountered in adults. Although prosthetic reconstruction requires surgical techniques that are less demanding than autogenous reconstruction, construction of the prosthesis is a time-consuming task requiring experience and expertise. Although autogenous reconstruction presents a technical challenge to the surgeon, it is the prosthetic reconstruction that requires lifelong attention and may be associated with late complications. This article reports the first American series of auricular reconstruction containing both autogenous and prosthetic methods by a single surgical team. (Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 107: 1241, 2001.)Keywords
This publication has 11 references indexed in Scilit:
- Lower Auricular Malformations: Their Representation, Correction, and Embryologic CorrelationPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 1999
- Ear reconstruction in cases of typical microtia. Personal experience based on 352 microtic ear correctionsScandinavian Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and Hand Surgery, 1998
- Osseointegrated Alloplastic versus Autogenous Ear ReconstructionPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 1994
- A New Method of Total Reconstruction of the Auricle for MicrotiaPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 1993
- Auricular Repair with Autogenous Rib Cartilage GraftsPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 1992
- Silastic Ear ConstructionClinics in Plastic Surgery, 1978
- TOTAL RECONSTRUCTION OF THE AURICLEPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 1971
- Use of a Silastic Frame for Total and Subtotal Reconstruction of the External EarPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 1966
- TOTAL RECONSTRUCTION OF THE EXTERNAL EARPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 1959
- THE MANAGEMENT OF THE HAIRLINE IN EAR RECONSTRUCTIONPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 1956