Long-term aesthetics, patient-reported outcomes, and auricular sensitivity after microtia reconstruction: A systematic review

Results: Forty-one publications reported on these outcomes. Both materials led to aesthetically pleasing results and high rates of patient satisfaction. ACC frameworks grew similarly to contralateral ears, and the anterior surface of auricles regained sensitivity. Furthermore, postoperative health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes were generally good. Data synthesis was limited due to considerable variability between studies and poor study quality. No conclusions could be drawn on the superiority of either method due to the lack of comparative analyses. Conclusion: Future studies should minimally report (1) surgical efficacy measured using the tool provided in the UK Care Standards for the Management of Patients with Microtia and Atresia; (2) complications including framework extrusion or exposure, graft loss, framework resorption, wire exposure and scalp/auricular scar complications and (3) HRQoL before and after treatment using the EAR-Q patient-reported outcome measure (PROM). (c) 2021 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ )

Automated summary

The results of the study showed that both materials led to aesthetically pleasing results and high patient satisfaction rates, while also improving postoperative health-related quality of life. However, the variability between studies and poor study quality prevented drawing conclusions on the superiority of either method. Future research should focus on reporting surgical efficacy, complications, and pre- and post-treatment HRQoL comparisons.