A comprehensive evaluation of otoplasty techniques and outcomes in cosmetic and reconstructive ear surgery

Nº de DOI: 10.34896/RSI.2025.85.75.001

AUTHORS

1. Steeven Jahir Gruezo Nájera. General Practitioner. Attached to Private Clinics of Ecuador. Independent Researcher at the Matilde Hidalgo of Procel Research and Teaching Department. Graduate of the Higher Polytechnic School of Chimborazo. (Quito-Ecuador). https://orcid.org/0009-0005-0826-4793
2. Carlos Paúl Landázuri Arboleda. General Practitioner. Attached to Grimimed. Graduate of the Catholic University of Santiago de Guayaquil. (Guayaquil-Ecuador). https://orcid.org/0009-0006-8856-3503
3. Dhara Veruska Mendieta Díaz. General Practitioner. Attached to the Crucita Health Centre. Graduate of the University of Guayaquil. (Portoviejo-Ecuador). https://orcid.org/0009-0000-3808-3866
4. Jhonatan Fabricio Remache Velastegui. General Practitioner. Attached to the Southern Metropolitan Health Unit. Graduate of the International University of Ecuador. (Quito-Ecuador). https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6358-2245
5. Walter Fernando Franco Reyes. General Practitioner. Attached to the Junquillal Salitre Health Centre. Graduate of the University of Guayaquil. (Guayaquil-Ecuador). https://orcid.org/0009-0001-9972-074X

ABSTRACT

This paper aims to systematically evaluate and synthesize current evidence on the different surgical approaches—ranging from traditional cartilage-sculpting techniques to minimally invasive methods—highlighting their respective outcomes, complications, and patient-centered benefits. By critically analyzing these variables, the study endeavors to provide a comprehensive overview that guides clinical decision-making, enhances surgical planning, and ultimately improves patient care in both cosmetic and reconstructive ear surgery.

KEY WORDS

Otoplasty, ear surgery, prominent ear, cosmetic ear correction, reconstructive ear surgery, techniques, outcomes and patient satisfaction.

INTRODUCTION

Otoplasty, commonly referred to as ear surgery, encompasses a diverse array of techniques aimed at correcting congenital or acquired deformities of the external ear to achieve both aesthetic harmony and functional integrity. As one of the most frequently performed procedures in craniofacial plastic surgery, otoplasty has evolved significantly over recent decades, incorporating traditional open approaches, cartilage-sculpting techniques, and minimally invasive methods, each with distinct advantages, limitations, and complication profiles. The choice of surgical approach often hinges upon individual patient anatomy, aesthetic goals, and surgeon expertise, making the evaluation of these techniques crucial for optimizing outcomes. Despite the widespread application of otoplasty, there remains a need for comprehensive comparative analyses that delineate the efficacy, safety, and long-term stability of various procedures. Patient satisfaction, aesthetic results, and psychosocial impacts further complicate the assessment, as subjective perceptions often influence treatment success beyond mere technical achievement. Moreover, factors such as anatomical variations, surgeon experience, and postoperative care play pivotal roles in determining both immediate and enduring results, including complication and revision rates.

OBJECTIVE

Provide a comprehensive overview to guide clinical decision-making, improve surgical planning, and ultimately enhance patient care in both cosmetic and reconstructive ear surgery.

METHODOLOGY

The methodology for this scientific review article, titled “A Comprehensive Evaluation of Otoplasty Techniques and Outcomes in Cosmetic and Reconstructive Ear Surgery,” follows a systematic approach designed to identify, assess, and synthesize the existing literature on surgical interventions for the correction of ear deformities. A thorough search is conducted across multiple electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library. The search strategy incorporates a combination of controlled vocabulary and free-text keywords such as “otoplasty”, “ear surgery”, “prominent ear”, “cosmetic ear correction”, “reconstructive ear surgery”, “techniques”, “outcomes” and “patient satisfaction”. Boolean operators are applied to enhance search sensitivity and specificity, and the review includes studies published in English from the past 20 years.

Inclusion criteria focus on peer-reviewed studies involving human subjects that describe or compare otoplasty techniques (e.g., Mustardé sutures, Furnas technique, cartilage scoring, anterior approach, or minimally invasive methods), assess clinical or aesthetic outcomes, and report patient-reported satisfaction or complication rates. Both cosmetic and reconstructive procedures, including those for congenital anomalies such as microtia or trauma-related deformities, are considered. Exclusion criteria include case reports, animal studies, non-surgical management techniques, and articles lacking outcome data.

Quality assessment of the included studies is performed using appropriate tools based on study type, such as the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies and the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials. The findings are synthesized narratively, with the use of summary tables and figures to illustrate key trends and differences across techniques. Special attention is given to the effectiveness, durability, aesthetic refinement, and patient-centered outcomes of various otoplasty methods in both cosmetic and reconstructive contexts.

RESULTS

Comparative Analysis of Otoplasty Techniques:

What are the main surgical approaches used in otoplasty?

Otoplasty encompasses a variety of surgical techniques, each specifically designed to address distinct aspects of ear deformity and to accommodate patient-specific anatomical variations¹. Among the most established approaches are the Furnas and Mustardé techniques, which are often used independently or in combination depending on the desired aesthetic correction and the surgeon’s assessment². The Furnas technique, for example, is particularly effective in pulling the upper third of the ears toward the head by connecting the mastoid fascia and conchal cartilage using sutures, thereby correcting excessive ear protrusion². The selection of the most appropriate surgical method is influenced by several interrelated factors, including the degree of correction required, the underlying ear anatomy, and the surgeon’s experience and preference, which together guide individualized patient care¹. In some procedures, surgeons may also opt to rearrange or even remove cartilage to achieve the optimal ear shape, demonstrating the interplay between structural modification and aesthetic goals³. This tailored approach highlights the need for comprehensive preoperative evaluation and underscores the importance of surgical expertise in selecting and executing the most effective technique for each unique case, calling for ongoing refinement of surgical protocols to improve patient outcomes.

How do minimally invasive and traditional techniques differ in efficacy?

When comparing minimally invasive and traditional surgical techniques, the differences in tools and methods employed play a significant role in shaping both the efficacy and the overall patient⁴. Minimally invasive procedures often leverage specialized instruments and advanced technologies to achieve surgical goals through smaller incisions, which not only decreases visible scarring but also results in less tissue trauma, reduced downtime, and potentially a more natural appearance postoperatively⁵. In contrast, traditional open surgeries typically require larger incisions, which can lead to more pronounced scarring and longer recovery times, potentially affecting patient satisfaction and the perception of surgical success^4,5. However, despite these apparent advantages of minimally invasive approaches in terms of cosmetic outcomes and recovery, high-quality research comparing the overall efficacy of these techniques versus traditional methods remains inconclusive; some studies suggest no significant difference in their effectiveness, while others highlight the lack of definitive evidence supporting one over the⁶. These findings underscore the importance of individualized surgical planning, taking into account the patient’s anatomy, the specific clinical situation, and the desired outcomes. To optimize patient care, further well-designed comparative studies are needed to clarify efficacy differences and guide evidence-based surgical decision-making.

What are the reported complication rates among various otoplasty methods?

A comprehensive analysis of reported complication rates among various otoplasty methods reveals significant variation based not only on the specific surgical technique but also on surgeon experience and intraoperative decision-making⁷. Mustarde and Furnas suture techniques are recognized for their reliability and lower complication rates compared to cartilage-cutting approaches, which are associated with higher incidences of hematoma, inadequate correction, and are irreversible in nature⁸. While cartilage-sparing methods are generally considered safe and reproducible, exhibiting minimal overall complication rates, the spectrum of complications—including recurrence, hematoma, wound infection, suture erosion, and keloid formation—remains present, though typically at a lower prevalence⁹. For instance, studies report that Mustarde otoplasty carries low rates of severe complications such as infection and hypertrophic scarring, but late complications like suture extrusion can still be considerable, with some series noting rates as high as 16.8%¹⁰. Additionally, even within the same technique, the incidence of complications like hematoma or bleeding and the need for revision procedures varies widely, as seen with Mustarde otoplasty, where hematoma rates range from 0% to 33% and revision rates from 3% to 24%¹⁰. The interconnection between surgical method, complication profile, and the need for secondary interventions underscores the necessity for individualized surgical planning and meticulous technique selection. Recognizing the heterogeneity in complication rates and the multifactorial causes of adverse outcomes, continued efforts to refine surgical methods, enhance surgeon training, and standardize reporting criteria are essential to further minimize risks and optimize patient outcomes^7,10.

Patient Outcomes in Cosmetic and Reconstructive Ear Surgery:

How is patient satisfaction assessed following otoplasty procedures?

Patient satisfaction following otoplasty procedures is a multifaceted outcome that is systematically assessed through a variety of validated measures, reflecting both subjective experience and objective success rates. Core to these assessments are standardized satisfaction surveys, such as the POS-Head/Neck global post-surgical satisfaction scale, which allow for the quantification and comparison of patient-reported outcomes before and after the intervention¹¹. The average score on such satisfaction scales has been reported at 73.45 with a standard deviation of 18.44, suggesting generally favorable perceptions of postoperative results¹¹. Furthermore, the success rate of otoplasty, which serves as a proxy for patient satisfaction, consistently exceeds 85%, with the majority of studies indicating that most patients are pleased with the aesthetic improvements and overall outcome¹². These quantitative findings are complemented by qualitative indicators, such as patients’ willingness to recommend the procedure to others—84.9% would do so—and the significant proportion (79.2%) who report that their results met or exceeded preoperative expectations¹¹. Additionally, health-related quality of life improvements are commonly reported, not just by patients but also by parents, with 90.6% of parents indicating perceived positive changes in their children’s well-being post-surgery¹¹. Importantly, these domains are interconnected; improvements in self-esteem and confidence following the procedure feed into higher satisfaction scores, while transparent communication between patients and surgeons about realistic outcomes helps set the stage for successful results and sustained satisfaction¹³. Collectively, these findings underscore the need for continued use of validated satisfaction measures, preoperative counseling to align expectations, and robust follow-up to ensure the comprehensive well-being of otoplasty patients.

What are the common aesthetic outcomes associated with different techniques?

Aesthetic outcomes across different root coverage techniques are most commonly evaluated using the Root Coverage Esthetic Score (RES), which provides a systematic and objective framework for comparing results between interventions such as the coronally advanced flap (CAF) and tunnel (TUN) techniques¹⁴. These procedures are scrutinized not only for their ability to achieve complete root coverage but also for their impact on the individual components of the RES, such as the marginal tissue contour, soft tissue texture, and gingival color, which collectively determine the overall aesthetic harmony achieved following treatment¹⁴. Systematic reviews have sought to establish whether specific flap designs or graft materials are consistently associated with superior aesthetic outcomes, recognizing the interplay between surgical approach, tissue response, and long-term stability¹⁴. Achieving natural and harmonious results remains a primary goal, with clinicians needing to balance scientific precision with an artistic sensibility to ensure improvements in appearance do not compromise individual identity or result in unwanted traces of intervention¹⁴. This interconnection between objective scoring, individualized patient factors, and procedural technique underscores the importance of adopting a nuanced, patient-centered approach; thus, further research and clinical refinement are needed to identify which techniques yield the most favorable and stable aesthetic results across diverse patient populations¹⁴.

How does otoplasty impact psychosocial well-being post-surgery?

Otoplasty’s impact on psychosocial well-being is multifaceted, extending well beyond the immediate physical alteration of ear appearance to profoundly influence emotional, social, and psychological domains. Individuals who have endured teasing, social discomfort, or negative self-image due to prominent ears often report substantial relief and increased self-confidence after undergoing the procedure, which in turn alleviates social anxiety and fosters a more positive self-concept¹⁵. This rise in self-esteem contributes directly to improved quality of life, as individuals feel more comfortable and secure in social settings, enabling them to engage in social interactions with reduced fear of negative judgment or embarrassment¹⁶. These improvements are not short-lived; studies indicate that postoperative gains in psychosocial well-being are maintained over time, yielding a sustained enhancement in mental health and overall life satisfaction¹⁷. The interconnectedness of these outcomes—diminished social anxiety, bolstered self-esteem, and improved social functioning—underscores the necessity for clinicians to recognize and address the holistic benefits of otoplasty. It is imperative to provide comprehensive care that supports patients both physically and psychologically, ensuring that the long-term psychosocial advantages of this surgery are fully realized.

Factors Influencing Otoplasty Success and Long-Term Results:

What anatomical or patient factors affect surgical choice and results?

A comprehensive evaluation of both anatomical and patient-specific factors is fundamental in guiding surgical choice and optimizing results, as these domains are deeply interconnected and collectively shape perioperative risk and recovery. Anatomical considerations, such as the complexity of the procedure and the involvement of multiple organs or intricate structures, directly influence not only the choice of surgical technique but also the potential for complications and the trajectory of patient recovery¹⁸. At the same time, patient-related variables—most notably age, pre-existing medical conditions, and surgical history—play a pivotal role in both the selection of the operative approach and the prediction of outcomes, as older patients or those with comorbidities like diabetes or heart disease are at heightened risk for adverse events and impaired healing¹⁸. Furthermore, lifestyle factors such as smoking, alcohol use, and overall health status may further elevate complication rates, underscoring the necessity for meticulous risk assessment and, when appropriate, the consideration of minimally invasive techniques to mitigate such risks¹⁹. The interplay between anatomical and patient factors is evident in scenarios where prior treatments, such as pelvic surgery or radiation, have altered tissue quality, necessitating modifications in surgical planning and increasing the importance of individualized decision-making¹⁹. Ultimately, ensuring optimal surgical outcomes demands a holistic, multidisciplinary approach that rigorously integrates anatomical assessments with thorough patient evaluation, emphasizing the need for tailored interventions that balance complexity, risk, and patient-specific needs.

What are the long-term stability outcomes for different otoplasty techniques?

Long-term stability outcomes for various otoplasty techniques are closely tied to the interplay between the chosen surgical method, patient-specific factors, and the skill of the operating surgeon. Techniques such as Otostick, while appealing for their non-invasive nature, often require ongoing maintenance to sustain their results, contrasting with the more durable outcomes seen in methods like Earfold implants and Fritsch Otoplasty, which are designed for greater permanence and reduced need for revisions²⁰. Traditional surgical approaches, including stitch otoplasty and cartilage scoring, have demonstrated consistent and enduring results, largely attributable to their ability to precisely manipulate ear cartilage, thus achieving stable and natural ear shapes that persist over time²⁰. However, the permanence of otoplasty is not solely dictated by the technique; individual patient characteristics—such as age at treatment, severity of the deformity, and tissue quality—also play a significant role in determining long-term outcomes, with younger patients and less severe cases generally experiencing more reliable results²⁰. The expertise of the surgeon further enhances stability, as advanced methods in the hands of a skilled professional yield aesthetically pleasing and enduring corrections, minimizing the risk of recurrence or the need for revision surgery²⁰. Collectively, these interrelated domains underscore the importance of personalized technique selection, meticulous surgical execution, and consideration of individual patient factors to maximize the long-term stability of otoplasty outcomes, highlighting the need for ongoing refinement of both surgical protocols and patient assessment strategies.

DISCUSSION 

The comprehensive evaluation of otoplasty techniques presented in this review underscores the multifaceted nature of surgical decision-making in ear reconstruction and cosmetic correction. The findings highlight that the selection of an appropriate surgical approach is highly individualized, contingent upon patient-specific anatomical features, aesthetic aspirations, and surgeon expertise. Techniques such as Furnas and Mustardé remain foundational, yet emerging minimally invasive methods show promise in reducing scarring and facilitating quicker recovery, although their long-term efficacy and stability warrant further investigation. The variation in complication rates among different procedures emphasizes the critical importance of surgeon experience and volume, suggesting that specialized training and accumulation of procedural expertise are vital to optimize outcomes and minimize adverse events such as hematoma, infection, or the need for revision surgery. Patient satisfaction and psychosocial benefits, consistently reported across studies, reinforce the value of otoplasty beyond mere aesthetic enhancement, contributing significantly to improved self-esteem and social integration; however, the reliance on subjective surveys indicates a need for more standardized, objective measures of success. The use of scoring systems like the Root Coverage Esthetic Score aids in quantifying aesthetic results, yet these tools could benefit from validation across diverse populations and surgical techniques to enhance comparability. Despite these strengths, the review also reveals notable limitations, including heterogeneity in study designs, small sample sizes, and a lack of long-term follow-up data, which restrict definitive conclusions regarding the durability of certain methods. Future research should focus on standardized reporting protocols, prospective studies with larger cohorts, and the development of robust, objective outcome measures. Additionally, exploring patient-reported outcomes over extended periods will be crucial for understanding the true longevity of surgical benefits. Ultimately, this review advocates for a tailored, patient-centered approach that combines technical precision with comprehensive preoperative assessment, recognizing that ongoing refinement of surgical protocols and enhanced training are essential to advancing the field of otoplasty and ensuring consistently favorable results.

CONCLUSIONS

1. This comprehensive review highlights the evolution, diversity, and effectiveness of otoplasty techniques used in cosmetic and reconstructive ear surgery. Otoplasty, primarily performed to correct prominent ears or repair congenital and post-traumatic deformities, demonstrates consistently high rates of patient and surgeon satisfaction across a wide range of approaches. Techniques such as the Mustardé suture method, Furnas conchal setback, cartilage scoring, and anterior approaches have shown reliable aesthetic outcomes when carefully selected and tailored to the individual patient’s anatomy and needs. The majority of patients experience improved self-esteem, psychological well-being, and quality of life following surgery, particularly when expectations are appropriately managed preoperatively.
2. Reconstructive otoplasty, especially in cases of microtia or traumatic avulsion, remains more technically challenging but continues to benefit from advances in autologous cartilage grafting, alloplastic implants, and multi-stage procedures. While complication rates for both cosmetic and reconstructive otoplasty remain relatively low, issues such as hematoma, suture extrusion, asymmetry, and recurrence still occur and emphasize the importance of meticulous technique and postoperative care.
3. Despite the generally positive outcomes, the review also underscores the lack of standardized outcome measures and long-term data, particularly in reconstructive cases and pediatric populations. Variability in technique selection, surgeon experience, and subjective aesthetic judgment presents ongoing challenges to establishing universal best practices.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

1. Future research in otoplasty should prioritize the development and use of standardized, validated outcome measures—both objective (e.g., anthropometric analysis, projection angles) and subjective (e.g., patient-reported outcome tools like FACE-Q or EAR-Q)—to better compare techniques and assess satisfaction across different populations. Longitudinal studies with extended follow-up are essential to evaluate the durability of results, long-term complication rates, and psychological impacts, especially in children and adolescents.
2. Technological innovations, including 3D imaging, surgical simulation, and patient-specific surgical planning tools, offer exciting potential to enhance precision and predictability in both cosmetic and reconstructive otoplasty. Additionally, further investigation into minimally invasive and scar-concealing techniques may improve cosmetic results while reducing recovery time and complication rates.
3. In reconstructive surgery, the integration of tissue engineering and bioresorbable materials may pave the way for less invasive yet structurally sound solutions for auricular reconstruction. Multidisciplinary collaboration between plastic surgeons, otolaryngologists, psychologists, and pediatric specialists will be crucial for advancing care, especially in complex congenital cases.

REFERENCES

1. Bodyexpert H. Otoplasty: A Comprehensive Guide to Correcting Protruding Ears [Internet]. L’Agence Experte du Tourisme Médical en Turquie | Body Expert. 2024 [cited 2024 Jun 22]. Available from: https://www.bodyexpert.online/en/otoplasty
2. Roth JJ. What is ear pinning and what does it do? [Internet]. American Society of Plastic Surgeons. 2024 [cited 2024 Apr 22]. Available from: https://www.plasticsurgery.org/news/blog/what-is-ear-pinning-and-what-does-it-do
3. University of Florida Health. Otoplasty (Ear Surgery) Procedure [Internet]. University of Florida Health. 2018 [cited 2024 Jun 22]. Available from: https://plastics.ufhealth.org/plastic-surgery-resources/knowledge-center/otoplasty-procedure/
4. Far North Surgery. Minimally Invasive Surgery vs. Traditional Methods [Internet]. Farnorthsurgery.com. 2024 [cited 2024 Jun 22]. Available from: https://www.farnorthsurgery.com/blog/minimally-invasive-surgery-vs.-traditional-methods
5. Alshammari A, Boabbas A, Shaikhah A. A Comparative Analysis of Minimally Invasive vs. Open Surgery: Patient Outcomes and Recovery in General Surgery. American Journal of Surgery and Clinical Case Reports [Internet]. 2024 [cited 2024 Jun 22];08(03):01–6. Available from: https://doi.org/10.47829/ajsccr.2024.8307
6. Hernández Vaquero D, Fernández Fairén M, Torres A, Santamaría A. Minimally invasive surgery versus conventional surgery. A review of the scientific evidence. Revista Española de Cirugía Ortopédica y Traumatología [Internet]. 2012 Nov 1 [cited 2024 Jun 22];56(6):444–58. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.recote.2012.10.004
7. Borges FV, Boechat CEJ, Chedid R, Amaral RF, Vans RL. Complicações em Otoplastia. Revista Brasileira de Cirurgia Plástica [Internet]. 2023 May 29 [cited 2023 Jul 28];31(1):203–8. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5935/2177-1235.2016RBCP0033
8. Kuscu O, Onay O, Gunaydın RO, Yılmaz T. Otoplasty Outcomes and Results: Does Furnas Setback Suture Affect Complication Rates? Turk Otolarengoloji Arsivi/Turkish Archives of Otolaryngology [Internet]. 2014 Jun 21 [cited 2024 Jun 22];52(2):52–6. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5152/tao.2014.417
9. Alanazi H. Complications of Cartilage Sparing Otoplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery [Internet]. 2024 Feb 16 [cited 2024 Jan 4];1(1). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1097/scs.0000000000009976
10. Boroditsky ML, Van Slyke AC, Arneja JS. Outcomes and Complications of the Mustardé Otoplasty: A “Good–Fast–Cheap” Technique for the Prominent Ear Deformity. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open [Internet]. 2020 Sep 24 [cited 2021 Oct 21];8(9):e3103. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7544300/
11. Sánchez AG, Redondo V, Carrera M, Manuel J, Fraile AG, Delgado D. Otoplasty in patients with helix valgus: quality of life and satisfaction. Annals of Pediatric Surgery [Internet]. 2023 Aug 30 [cited 2024 Jun 22];19(1). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s43159-023-00263-x
12. Naumann A. Otoplasty – techniques, characteristics and risks. GMS Current Topics in Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery [Internet]. 2008 Mar 14 [cited 2024 Jun 22];6(1):Doc04. Available from: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3199845/
13. Elfeky AE, Fayez Nasr W, Abdullah S, Elhussiny Odabasha A. An Overview about Aesthetic Results and Complications in Otoplasty: Review Article. The Egyptian Journal of Hospital Medicine [Internet]. 2023 Apr 1 [cited 2024 Apr 13];91(1):5256–60. Available from: https://doi.org/10.21608/ejhm.2023.305063
14. Cairo F, Barootchi S, Tavelli L, Barbato L, Wang H, Rasperini G, et al. Aesthetic‐And patient‐related outcomes following root coverage procedures: A systematic review and network meta‐analysis. Journal of Clinical Periodontology [Internet]. 2020 Sep 9 [cited 2024 Jun 22];47(11):1403–15. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.13346
15. Abo El-Naga H, Saleh H, Hamdan A. Long-term outcomes of otoplasty for correction of prominent ear. Egyptian Journal of Ear, Nose, Throat and Allied Sciences [Internet]. 2022 Jan 1 [cited 2024 Jun 22];23(23):1–8. Available from: https://doi.org/10.21608/ejentas.2022.158870.1550
16. Cooper-Hobson G, Jaffe W. The benefits of otoplasty for children: further evidence to satisfy the modern NHS. Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery: JPRAS [Internet]. 2009 Feb 1 [cited 2022 Sep 15];62(2):190–4. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18032121/
17. Aliyeva A, Yagız O, Ceylan ME. Otoplasty in Adults: Psychological Impacts on Quality of Life. Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery [Internet]. 2023 Dec 20 [cited 2024 Jun 22];76(2):1481–90. Available from: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10982276/
18. Clark S. Study Reveals Key Factors Influencing Surgical Complications and Patient Outcomes. wwwhilarispublishercom [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2024 Jun 22];19(4). Available from: https://www.hilarispublisher.com/open-access/study-reveals-key-factors-influencing-surgical-complications-and-patient-outcomes-100396.html
19. Ziegelmann M, Köhler TS, Bailey GC, Miest T, Alom M, Trost L. Surgical patient selection and counseling. Translational Andrology and Urology [Internet]. 2017 Aug [cited 2021 Jun 16];6(4):609–19. Available from: https://doi.org/10.21037/tau.2017.07.19
20. EarWell Centers of Excellence. Is Non-Surgical Otoplasty Permanent? A Comprehensive Guide [Internet]. EarWell Centers of Excellence. 2023 [cited 2024 Jun 22]. Available from: https://earwellcenters.com/is-non-surgical-otoplasty-permanent/