Anita Sulibhavi, Sai P Reddy, Sydney C Butts, Cecelia E Schmalbach
{"title":"儿童耳模成型--时机、技术和随访:系统回顾。","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":"{\"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}","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}
Ear Molding in Children-Timing, Technique, and Follow-up: A Systematic Review.
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.