Comparative Study between Patients' Satisfaction after Reconstructed Auricle Using 2D and 3D Models

Abdel Halim, Mohamed M; Shafik, Fady Rezk; El Shahat, Ahmed; Gad, Ahmed M

doi:10.21608/ejprs.2022.269082

Comparative Study between Patients' Satisfaction after Reconstructed Auricle Using 2D and 3D Models

Document Type : Research article

Authors

The Department of Plastic, Burn and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University

10.21608/ejprs.2022.269082

Abstract

Background: Microtia is a rare and severe craniofacial
abnormality that impairs newborns' appearance. The most
favored treatment for microtia is autologous ear reconstruction.
It is essential for the reconstruction process that surgeons
provide templates of their patients' normal auricles to be
shaped. Traditionally, 2D models have been utilized everywhere.
The rising use of 3D printing in the medical field has
led to several improvements, especially the development of
patient-specific models based on actual imaging data.
Objectives: This study compared the satisfaction of patients
regarding the aesthetic outcomes between 2D & 3D modelling.
Patients and Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 44
patients; with unilateral microtia underwent autologous ear
reconstruction using costal cartilage graft were selected.
Bilateral cases and Anotia types were excluded. Costal cartilages
of 6th to 8th ribs were harvested in the 1st stage to shape
the framework, 32 patients underwent 3D model planning
while 12 patients were managed by 2D template. Elevation
of the framework was done in the 2nd stage after 3-6 months.
Satisfaction was recorded using a questionnaire form 4 months
postoperatively.
Results: Scores of 3D in specific items were significantly
better than those in 2D. It was highly significant difference
in satisfaction regarding concha subunit and separation of the
auricle.
Conclusion: After autogenous ear reconstruction, 3D
modelling is more effective than 2D modelling at improving
patient satisfaction, particularly with regard to the concha's
form and separation from the scalp < /p>

Keywords

Main Subjects

Congenital anomalies

References

1- Li D., Chin W., Wu J., Zhang Q., Xu F., Xu Z. and Zhang
R.: Psychosocial outcomes among microtia patients of
different ages and genders before ear reconstruction.
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, 34 (5): 570-6, 2010.
2- Soukup B., Mashhadi S.A. and Bulstrode N.W.: Healthrelated
quality-of-life assessment and surgical outcomes
for auricular reconstruction using autologous costal cartilage.
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 129 (3): 632-
40, 2012.
3- Pertschuk M.J. and Whitáker L.A.: Social and psychological
effects of craniofacial deformity and surgical reconstruction.
Clinics in Plastic Surgery, 9 (3): 297-306, 1982.
4- Dreher R., Blaya C., Tenório J.L.C., Saltz R., Ely P.B.
and Ferrão Y.A.: Quality of life and aesthetic plastic
surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Plast.
Reconstr. Surg. Glob. Open., 4 (9): e862, 2016.
5- Bly R.A., Bhrany A.D., Murakami C.S. and Sie K.C.Y.:
Microtia reconstruction. Facial Plast. Surg. Clin. North
Am., 24 (4): 577-591, 2016.
6- Zhou J., Pan B., Yang Q., Zhao Y., He L., Lin L., Sun H.,
Song Y., Yu X., Sun Z. and Jiang H.: Three-dimensional
autologous cartilage framework fabrication assisted by
new additive manufactured ear-shaped templates for
microtia reconstruction. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive
& Aesthetic Surgery, 69 (10): 1436-44, 2016.
7- Jeon B., Lee C., Kim M., Choi T.H., Kim S. and Kim S.:
Fabrication of three-dimensional scan-to-print ear model
for microtia reconstruction. journal of Surgical Research,
206 (2): 490-7, 2016.
8- Mussi E., Furferi R., Volpe Y., Facchini F., McGreevy
K.S. and Uccheddu F.: Ear reconstruction simulation:
From handcrafting to 3D printing. Bioengineering, 6 (1):
14, 2019.
9- Liaw C.Y. and Guvendiren M.: Current and emerging
applications of 3D printing in medicine. Biofabrication,
9 (2): 024102, 2017.
10- Cui C., Li Y., Zhang R., Zhang Q., Xu Z., Chiu E.S., Xu
F., Li D., Li T. and Chen W.: Patient perception and
satisfaction questionnaire for microtia reconstruction: A
new clinical tool to improve patient outcome. Journal of
Craniofacial Surgery, 29 (2): e162-7, 2018.
11- Clapham P.J., Pushman A.G. and Chung K.C.: A systematic
review of applying patient satisfaction outcomes in plastic
surgery. Plast. Reconstr. Surg., 125: 1826-1833, 2010.
12- Honigman R.J., Phillips K.A. and Castle D.J.: A review
of psychosocial outcomes for patients seeking cosmetic
surgery. Plast. Reconstr. Surg., 113: 1229-1237, 2004.
13- Widodo D.W., Mars R., Suwento R., Alviandi W., Oriza
I.I. and Bardosono S.: Satisfaction and health-related
quality of life of patients with microtia following reconstructive
surgery using the Nagata technique. PloS One,
16 (9): e0256652, 2021.
14- Akter F., Mennie J.C., Stewart K. and Bulstrode N.: Patient
reported outcome measures in microtia surgery. Journal
of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery, 70 (3):
416-24, 2017.
Egypt, J. Plast. Reconstr. Surg., October 2022 395
15- Horlock N., Vogelin E. and Bradbury E.T.: Psychosocial
outcome of patients after ear reconstruction: A retrospective
study of 62 patients. Ann. Plast. Surg., 54: 517-524, 2005.
16- Cui C., Hoon S.Y., Zhang R., Zhang Q., Xu Z., Xu F., Li
D. and Li Y.: Patient satisfaction and its influencing factors
of microtia reconstruction using autologous cartilage.
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, 41 (5): 1106-14, 2017.
17- Zhu P. and Chen S.: Clinical outcomes following ear
reconstruction with adjuvant 3D template model. Acta.
Oto-Laryngologica., 136 (12): 1236-41, 2016