Comparison of cartilage scoring and cartilage sparing otoplasty – A study of 203 cases

SummaryThe Edinburgh experience of different methods of otoplasty techniques in 203 patients (406 ears) over a five-year period is reviewed.Materials and methodsThe patients were divided into three groups – Group A (anterior cartilage scoring), Group B (cartilage sparing in the fashion of posterior suturing) and Group C (posterior suturing refined with posterior fascial flap). Demographic details, operation technique, operation time, grade of the surgeon, suture materials, early and late complications, recurrence and revision rates, patients' and physicians' comments at the follow-up clinic were retrieved from the case notes. The pre- and the post-operative photographs were assessed by a blinded lay observer and a physician and scored on a visual analogue scale. Median follow-up was 11 months.ResultsThe recurrence rate was 11.0%, 8.0% and 4.8% in Groups A, B and C, respectively (p = 0.0214). Complications were more common in Group A (8.8%) and Group B (7.9%) compared to Group C (1.2%) (p = 0.0208). The cosmetic result was judged best in Group C.In our experience, cartilage-sparing otoplasty refined with the post-auricular fascial flap results in significantly reduced complication rate and improved aesthetic outcome.