Background: We analyzed an original case series of the classic ear-molding method and evaluated the efficacy and complication rate of the method compared to commercial ear-molding products by meta-analysis to draw conclusions on the efficacy of the classic method.
Methods: From January 2019 to March 2022, we selected patients who underwent classic ear molding for newborn ear deformities at our institution and reviewed the patient age, treatment time, efficiency and complications. Additionally, the PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus databases were searched, and meta-analysis (following the PRISMA guidelines) was performed.
Results: In the case study, the success rate (excellent and good outcomes) of the classic ear-molding method was 92.6%. The mean age at application and mean duration of application were 5.81 ± 6.09 days and 32.13 ± 7.90 days, respectively. In the systematic review, the classic method group showed a statistically smaller success rate (proportion of 0.79) and statistically smaller complication rate (proportion of 0.05) than the commercial product group (proportion of 0.83).
Conclusions: Compared with commercial products, classic ear molding has remarkable and comparable therapeutic effects on neonatal auricular deformities. Additionally, the classic ear-molding method is more suitable for infants with auricular deformities from socioeconomically vulnerable areas. Thus, the classic ear-molding method could be a better option for congenital ear anomalies than commercial ear-molding products.
Keywords: auricular anomaly; congenital ear anomaly; deformational ear anomaly; ear molding; newborn; nonsurgical correction.