الفهرس 
Embryology of the AuricleOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 201 |  |  |
| | | from | 201 | | |
Abstract
The external ear is a defining feature of the face. It helps make one have the “normal” look with an aesthetically fine appearance. Prominent ear is the commonest congenital deformity of the external ear. This deformity has profound psychosocial effects on the bearer. Prominent ear interferes with the patient’s social and sometimes even mental wellness. The well being of patients is the ultimate goal of every medical practitioner, thus it is the surgeon’s responsibility to bring back “normalcy” in individuals with deformities such as prominent ears.
Most authors agree that a normal ear is one with an ear projection of less than 21 mm. (Adamson and Litner, 2006) and (Wright, 1997) defined prominence as a distance greater than 2 cm. Using the same definition, (Kalcioglu et al., 2003) and (Purkait and Singh, 2007) noted the prevalence of protrusion to be about 10%.
The prominent ear has been classically characterized by either 1) excessive height of the conchal wall or 2) absence of an antihelical fold (a conchoscaphal angle >90°) or both. The deformity is usually bilateral. The condition results from embryonic arrest during the final convolutions of the ear, with failure of folding of the antihelix. The “telephone deformity” refers to relative prominence of the upper and lower poles, whereas the “reverse telephone deformity” means excessive prominence of the concha relative to the upper and lower poles. These deformities are usually seen as postsurgical complications (Petrescu et al., 2018).
Otoplasty techniques for the correction of prominent ears can be grouped into operations that involve 1) excision of cartilage; 2) molding the ear with sutures; 3) molding the ear with scoring or sculpting of cartilage; or 4) a combination of any of the above. Various techniques are utilized at the key anatomic locations to correct ear prominence.
Otoplasty procedures, that combine excision, suturing, and cartilage scoring techniques, avoid some of the disadvantages of each method and often produce the best aesthetic result. For example, because cartilage scoring on the anterior surface of the ear tends to produce sharp edges, a judicious blend of conservative anterior scoring and posterior excision and suturing may give the best final ear shape and position.
In our study, we assessed the combined technique of otoplasty, merging cartilage scoring with Mustardé sutures and Furnas sutures (group A) and compared the results of this technique with the results omitting the cartilage scoring step (group B) regarding surgical outcomes in the form of pre and post operative anthropometric measurements, patients’ satisfaction in the form of postoperative questionnaire and safety of the technique in the form of the rate of postoperative complications.
The surgical outcomes of patients of group A and B were good with no major difference. The patients’ satisfaction of group A was slightly more than group B but still insignificant. Hematoma formation was more in group A than group B.