León-Pérez JA, García JI, Sesman-Bernal AL, Fernández-Sobrino G

Language: Spanish
References: 19
Page: 154-163
PDF size: 409.11 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Antecedents. Optimal auricular reconstruction for microtia requires a portion of a costal cartilage on which to carve the details of the framework, the key to preserve the anatomical details through the skin. The basic steps in our technique are similar to those of Nagata, but we propose the use of this mold in order to obtain a frame for best aesthetic anatomical results in auricular reconstruction.
Material and Method. We reviewed the records of 406 children with microtia operated in the Department of Plastic Surgery of our Hospital from January of 2003 to December of 2006. In the surgical technique used, we propose a mold as an exact copy of the opposite normal ear in case of microtia unilateral; or a copy of the normal ear of some relative in case of bilateral microtia.
Results. We obtained an adequate form of the framework, good definition of it under the skin and excellent long-term esthetic results.
Conclusions. The use of this mold as support to form the frame of autologous cartilage in auricular reconstruction for microtia permits to obtain an adequate definition of the details and an ear quite similar to the normal contralateral, thus providing better esthetic results. While more comparative studies are desirable between the old technique and the one described in our results have been most satisfactory.

REFERENCES

1. Aase JM, Tegtmeier RE. Microtia in New Mexico: evidence for multifactorial causation. Birth Defects Orig Artic Ser 1977;13(3A):113-6

2. Adamson JE, Horton CE, Crawford HH. The growth pattern of the external ear. Plast Reconstr Surg 1965;36(4):466-70

3. Brent B. The correction of microtia with autogenous cartilage grafts: I. The classic deformity. Plast Reconstr Surg 1980;66(1):1-12.

4. Converse JM. Reconstruction of the auricle. Part I. Plast Reconstr Surg 1958;22:150-63.

5. Converse JM. Reconstruction of the auricle. Part II. Plast Reconstr Surg 1958;22:230-49.

6. Firmin F. Controversies in autogenous auricular reconstruction. Presented at: Ear Reconstruction ‘98: Choices for the Future. Lake Louise National Park, Alberta, Canada 1998.

7. Llano-Rivas I, Gonzalez-del Angel A, Del Castillo V, et al. Microtia: a clinical and genetic study at the National Institute of Pediatrics in Mexico City. Arch Med Res 1999;30(2):120-4

8. Melnick M, Myranthopoulus NC. Eds: External Ear Malformations: Epidemiology, Genetics and Natural History. In: Birth Defects 1979.

9. Nagata S. A new method of total reconstruction of the auricle for microtia. Plast Reconstr Surg 1993;92(2):187-201

10. Pierce GW. Reconstruction of the external ear. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1930;50:601.

11. Poswillo D. Otomandibular deformity: Pathogenesis as a guide to reconstruction. J Max Fac Surg 1974;2:64-72.

12. Poswillo DE. Discussion of Bennun RD, Mulliken JB, Kaban LB, Murray JE. Microtia: A microform of hemifacial microsomia. Plast Reconstr Surg 1985;76:864-5.

13. Snively SL. Plastic surgery of the ear. Select Read Plast Surg 1994;7:1-26.

14. Takahashi H, Maeda K. Survey of the familial occurrence of 171 microtia cases. Jpn J Plast Surg 1982;15:310.

15. Tanzer RC: Total reconstruction of the auricle. The evolution of a plan of treatment. Plast Reconstr Surg 1971;47(6):523-33

16. Tanzer RC. Total reconstruction of the external ear. Plast. Reconstr Surg 1959;23:1-15.

17. Thomson HG, Winslow J. Microtia reconstruction: does the cartilage framework grow? Plast Reconstr Surg 1989;84(6):908-15.

18. Tolleth H. A hierarchy of values in the design and construction of the ear. Clin Plast Surg 1990;17(2):193-207.

19. Tolleth H. Artistic anatomy, dimensions, and proportions of the external ear. Clin Plast Surg 1978;5(3):337-45.