Ear Molding in Children-Timing, Technique, and Follow-up: A Systematic Review.

IF 1.6 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Facial Plastic Surgery & Aesthetic Medicine Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-04 DOI:10.1089/fpsam.2023.0321
Anita Sulibhavi, Sai P Reddy, Sydney C Butts, Cecelia E Schmalbach
{"title":"Ear Molding in Children-Timing, Technique, and Follow-up: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Anita Sulibhavi, Sai P Reddy, Sydney C Butts, Cecelia E Schmalbach","doi":"10.1089/fpsam.2023.0321","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Nonsurgical management of congenital ear anomalies using molding devices shows efficacy but lacks standardization of treatment protocols and outcome measures. <b>Learning Objective:</b> To compare ear molding techniques and identify factors related to treatment outcomes. <b>Design Type:</b> Systematic review of the literature (1990-2021). <b>Methods:</b> Studies reporting molding for congenital ear anomalies were assessed. PRISMA guidelines were used. Data extracted included: age at treatment initiation, treatment duration, correction rates, and complications. Data analysis included descriptive statistics and outcomes were compared using the Student <i>t</i>-test. <b>Results:</b> In total, 37 studies with 3,341 patients (mean patients per study, 95; range, 5-488) were included. Infants in whom treatment was initiated at 4.8 weeks (median, 3.7; range, 0.9-8.8 weeks) were treated for 5.1 weeks (median 4.7, range 2.6-7.6 weeks) with 11.0 months follow-up (median 11.4, range 1.4-21.0 months). Individualized devices (physician-customized) were used more (62.2% of studies) than commercial devices. No difference in correction (<i>p</i> = 0.44) or complication rates (<i>p</i> = 0.19) was identified between devices. Totally, 70.3% of studies reported complications and 40.5% of studies included long-term follow-up data. <b>Conclusions:</b> The available evidence supports initiating ear molding in the first weeks of life to be most effective, yet outcome data should be standardized in future studies to improve evidence quality.</p>","PeriodicalId":48487,"journal":{"name":"Facial Plastic Surgery & Aesthetic Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"730-739"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Facial Plastic Surgery & Aesthetic Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/fpsam.2023.0321","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Nonsurgical management of congenital ear anomalies using molding devices shows efficacy but lacks standardization of treatment protocols and outcome measures. Learning Objective: To compare ear molding techniques and identify factors related to treatment outcomes. Design Type: Systematic review of the literature (1990-2021). Methods: Studies reporting molding for congenital ear anomalies were assessed. PRISMA guidelines were used. Data extracted included: age at treatment initiation, treatment duration, correction rates, and complications. Data analysis included descriptive statistics and outcomes were compared using the Student t-test. Results: In total, 37 studies with 3,341 patients (mean patients per study, 95; range, 5-488) were included. Infants in whom treatment was initiated at 4.8 weeks (median, 3.7; range, 0.9-8.8 weeks) were treated for 5.1 weeks (median 4.7, range 2.6-7.6 weeks) with 11.0 months follow-up (median 11.4, range 1.4-21.0 months). Individualized devices (physician-customized) were used more (62.2% of studies) than commercial devices. No difference in correction (p = 0.44) or complication rates (p = 0.19) was identified between devices. Totally, 70.3% of studies reported complications and 40.5% of studies included long-term follow-up data. Conclusions: The available evidence supports initiating ear molding in the first weeks of life to be most effective, yet outcome data should be standardized in future studies to improve evidence quality.

儿童耳模成型--时机、技术和随访:系统回顾。
背景:使用成型器械对先天性耳畸形进行非手术治疗有一定疗效,但缺乏标准化的治疗方案和疗效衡量标准。学习目标比较耳成型技术,并确定与治疗效果相关的因素。设计类型:系统回顾文献(1990-2021 年)。方法:评估报告先天性耳畸形耳模成型术的研究。采用 PRISMA 指南。提取的数据包括:开始治疗时的年龄、治疗持续时间、矫正率和并发症。数据分析包括描述性统计和使用学生 t 检验比较结果。结果:共纳入 37 项研究,3,341 名患者(每项研究的平均患者人数为 95 人;范围为 5-488 人)。婴儿在 4.8 周时开始接受治疗(中位数为 3.7 周,范围为 0.9-8.8 周),治疗时间为 5.1 周(中位数为 4.7 周,范围为 2.6-7.6 周),随访时间为 11.0 个月(中位数为 11.4 个月,范围为 1.4-21.0 个月)。个性化设备(医生定制)的使用率(62.2% 的研究)高于商用设备。不同设备的矫正率(p = 0.44)或并发症发生率(p = 0.19)均无差异。共有 70.3% 的研究报告了并发症,40.5% 的研究纳入了长期随访数据。结论现有证据表明,在婴儿出生后的头几周开始进行耳模制作最为有效,但今后的研究应将结果数据标准化,以提高证据质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
30.00%
发文量
159
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信