Combined Mustardé and Furnas type otoplasty with minimal conchal cartilage excision

Abstract

Objective: We aimed to evaluate the complication rate and satisfaction status of patients who underwent otoplasty with the combined Mustardé and Furnas sutures with minimal medial conchal cartilage excision. Materials and Methods: Forty-four ears of 22 patients, operated for prominent ear deformity were retrospectively included in the study. Patients were called for follow-up at various time intervals. At the sixth month, the patient and parents were asked to rate their satisfaction with the operation on a scale of 1-10 and noted. Results: The mean age of the patients was 8.09±2.72 years. The antihelix was created with Mustardé technique, minimal medial conchal excisions were performed, two conchamastoid sutures were placed with Furnas technique. The mean follow-up period was 23.86±11.97 months. Complications developed in 4 of 44 ears (9%). Major complication rate was 4.5%. Two patients (4.5%) had suture extrusion in one ear. None of the patients scored lower than 7 in the satisfaction questionnaire. Conclusion: Otoplasty with a combination of cartilage-sparing techniques has low complication, revision, and high satisfaction rates. Minimal medial conchal cartilage excision in addition to this technique is beneficial in reducing the conchamastoid tension and does not increase the risk of complications.

Keywords

• Prominent ears
• Otoplasty
• Antihelix
• Mustardé
• Furnas

References

1. Schneider AL, Sidle DM. Cosmetic otoplasty. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 2018;26:19-29. doi: 10.1016/j.fsc.2017.09.004.
2. Tamer E. Otoplasty. In: Önerci M, Güneri E A, editors. Otolarnygology – Head and Neck Surgery. 1st edition. Ankara: Mafsa Publishing House, 2016:121-34.
3. Mustardé JC. The correction of prominent ears using simple mattress sutures. Br J Plast Surg 1963;16: 170-8.
4. Furnas DW. Correction of prominent ears by conchamastoid sutures. Plast Reconstr Surg 1968;42:189-93.
5. Cooper-Hobson G, Jaffe W. The benefits of otoplasty for children: further evidence to satisfy the modern NHS. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2009;62: 190-4.
6. Schwentner I, Schmutzhard J, Deibl M, Sprinzl GM. Health-related quality of life outcome of adult patients after otoplasty. J Craniofac Surg 2006;17:629-35. doi: 10.1097/00001.665.200607000-00004.
7. Songu M. Combined Mustardé and Furnas type otoplasty: the experience of 85 patients. ENT Updates 2013;3: 129-34. doi: 10.2399/jmu.201.300.3005
8. Calder JC, Naasan A. Morbidity of otoplasty: a review of 562 consecutive cases. Br J Plast Surg 1994;47:170-4. doi: 10.1016/0007-1226(94)90049-3.

9. Baker DC, Converse JM. Correction of protruding ears: A 20-year retrospective. Aesthetic Plast Surg 1979;3:29-39. doi: 10.1007/BF01577834.
10. Sobec R, Dobreanu C, Fodor L, Şomcutean A, Ţichil I, Cosgarea M. Ear keloids: a review and update of treatment options. Clujul Med 2013;86:313-7.
11. Boroditsky ML, Van Slyke AC, Arneja JS. Outcomes and complications of the Mustardé otoplasty: A “Good-Fast- Cheap” technique for the prominent ear deformity. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2020;8:e3103. doi: 10.1097/ GOX.000.000.0000003103.
12. Horlock N, Misra A, Gault DT. The postauricular fascial flap as an adjunct to Mustardé and Furnas type otoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 2001;108:1487-90; doi: 10.1097/00006.534.200111000-00005.
13. Irkoren S, Kucukkaya D, Sivrioglu N, Ozkan HS. Using bilaterally fascioperichondrial flaps with a distal and a proximal base combined with conventional otoplasty. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2014;271:1389-93. doi: 10.1007/ s00405.013.2552-7.
14. Sinha M, Richard B. Postauricular fascial flap and suture otoplasty: a prospective outcome study of 227 patients. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2012;65:367-71. doi: 10.1016/j. bjps.2011.09.018.