Background: Auricular reconstruction is the sole therapy for external ear deformities. The flap pocket method and the expansion method are currently the two principal auricular reconstruction methods in microtia. The efficacy and safety of these two surgical techniques has long been a subject of controversy, bedeviled by a lack of objective comparative evidence.
Methods: The authors searched the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases for clinical studies on auricular reconstruction in microtia updated to Jan 1, 2021. A meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the major outcomes for patient convenience, incidence of complications and postoperative patient satisfaction.
Results: A total of twenty-two articles involving 7963 patients were included in this study. Nine studies involving 2475 patients concerned the flap pocket method and thirteen studies involving 5488 patients concerned the expansion method. The pooled patient satisfaction rate was higher using the flap pocket method than the expansion method (90.5% versus 83.3%, p = 0.000). Total complication incidence was lower using the flap pocket method than with the expansion method (6.8% versus 9.5%, p = 0.000). There were zero expander-related complications using the flap pocket method, but a 4% complication incidence using the expansion method. The total treatment period for the flap pocket method was 5.57 ± 1.13 months, much shorter than the 10.75 ± 3.54 months (p < 0.05) of the expansion method.
Conclusions: In microtia, the flap pocket method scores higher on patient satisfaction, while having lower post-operative complications and a shorter treatment period compared with the expansion method.
Keywords: Ear reconstruction; Flap pocket; Microtia; Tissue expansion.
Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier B.V.