alexa Patient satisfaction and aesthetic outcomes after ear reconstruction with a Branemark-type, bone-anchored, ear prosthesis: a 16 year review.


Reconstructive Surgery & Anaplastology

Author(s): Younis I, Gault D, Sabbagh W, Kang NV

Abstract Share this page

Abstract INTRODUCTION: Reconstruction of the human ear with a bone-anchored prosthesis is a widely accepted alternative when autologous reconstruction is technically impossible or declined by the individual. However, there are relatively few data in the literature documenting patient satisfaction with this form of reconstruction. METHODS: This study examines different aspects of patient satisfaction using an eighteen-point postal questionnaire to measure patient outcomes against a Likert rating scale. The questionnaire was sent to 33 patients who completed prosthetic ear reconstruction over a 16 year period at a specialist plastic surgery unit in the United Kingdom. Medical case notes for these cases were also reviewed. Twenty completed questionnaires were returned. RESULTS: The response rate was 61\%. The majority of patients were satisfied with the aesthetics, ease of handling and comfort of the bone-anchored implant and prosthesis. However, the majority of patients was only moderately satisfied or was dissatisfied with this method of reconstruction. Specifically, 15 of the respondents reported skin problems around the abutments of the bone-anchored implant with 10 patients reporting ongoing skin complications. Granulation tissue was the most common skin problem (12 cases) followed by local infection (10 cases). Interestingly, despite the chronic skin problems, most patients indicated that they would undergo the same procedure again or would recommend it to others. DISCUSSION: Our survey shows that patients fitted with a Branemark-type bone-anchored implant for ear reconstruction are pleased with the aesthetic appearance but experience multiple, chronic, skin complications and other implant related problems. These affect their satisfaction with this method of reconstruction. Our findings may have significant implications for patients and surgeons considering this form of reconstruction and for the institutions making decisions about funding this treatment. Copyright 2009. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This article was published in J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg and referenced in Reconstructive Surgery & Anaplastology

Relevant Expert PPTs

Relevant Speaker PPTs

Recommended Conferences

Relevant Topics

Peer Reviewed Journals
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700 + peer reviewed, Open Access Journals
International Conferences 2017-18
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Annual Meetings

Contact Us

Agri, Food, Aqua and Veterinary Science Journals

Dr. Krish

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9040

Clinical and Biochemistry Journals

Datta A

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9037

Business & Management Journals


1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Chemical Engineering and Chemistry Journals

Gabriel Shaw

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9040

Earth & Environmental Sciences

Katie Wilson

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Engineering Journals

James Franklin

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

General Science and Health care Journals

Andrea Jason

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9043

Genetics and Molecular Biology Journals

Anna Melissa

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9006

Immunology & Microbiology Journals

David Gorantl

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9014

Informatics Journals

Stephanie Skinner

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Material Sciences Journals

Rachle Green

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Mathematics and Physics Journals

Jim Willison

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9042

Medical Journals

Nimmi Anna

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9038

Neuroscience & Psychology Journals

Nathan T

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9041

Pharmaceutical Sciences Journals

John Behannon

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9007

Social & Political Science Journals

Steve Harry

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9042

© 2008-2017 OMICS International - Open Access Publisher. Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version