The Journal of craniofacial surgery · 2014
Cartilage-sparing techniques versus percutaneous adjustable closed otoplasty for prominent ear deformity.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ozturan Orhan, Dogan Remzi, Eren Sabri Baki, Aksoy Fadlullah, Veyseller Bayram
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study is to follow longitudinally the prominent ears treated by either cartilage-sparing techniques (CSTs) or percutaneous adjustable closed otoplasty (PACO) and compare them as to efficacy, reoccurrence, complications, and patient contentedness.
METHODS: The CSTs were applied to the first group, that is, 17 patients (32 ears) with stiff auricular cartilage; whereas PACO was applied to the second group, 15 patients (28 ears) with soft auricular cartilage. Auriculocephalic distances were recorded at 4 levels preoperatively, at the completion of the surgery, and again postoperatively at the 1st, 3rd, 6th, and 12th months. Patients' satisfaction was assessed using different scales.
RESULTS: Between the 2 groups, no significant difference was observed in age and satisfaction scales. Mean operating time using PACO was much shorter than using CST. Excluding hematoma, no statistically significant difference in complication rates was observed between the groups. Auriculocephalic distances in both groups were found to have increased comparably up to the 12th month.
CONCLUSIONS: A comparison of CST and PACO showed that they have comparable rates of efficacy, outcome, reoccurrence, and patient contentedness. For prominent ear deformities with soft cartilage, PACO should be preferred because of its advantages of shorter time in surgery, lack of need for lengthy postoperative compressive bandage, comparable efficacy, and letting patients to look at the results right after the operation.
METHODS: The CSTs were applied to the first group, that is, 17 patients (32 ears) with stiff auricular cartilage; whereas PACO was applied to the second group, 15 patients (28 ears) with soft auricular cartilage. Auriculocephalic distances were recorded at 4 levels preoperatively, at the completion of the surgery, and again postoperatively at the 1st, 3rd, 6th, and 12th months. Patients' satisfaction was assessed using different scales.
RESULTS: Between the 2 groups, no significant difference was observed in age and satisfaction scales. Mean operating time using PACO was much shorter than using CST. Excluding hematoma, no statistically significant difference in complication rates was observed between the groups. Auriculocephalic distances in both groups were found to have increased comparably up to the 12th month.
CONCLUSIONS: A comparison of CST and PACO showed that they have comparable rates of efficacy, outcome, reoccurrence, and patient contentedness. For prominent ear deformities with soft cartilage, PACO should be preferred because of its advantages of shorter time in surgery, lack of need for lengthy postoperative compressive bandage, comparable efficacy, and letting patients to look at the results right after the operation.