Comparison study between separation of helix from antihelix and mustarde techniques in the management of prominent ear

Abstract

ObjectiveThis study aimed to assess the outcome of separating the helix from the antihelix as a new concept in the management of protruding ear and compare its result with the Mustarde technique.BackgroundThe Mustarde technique is one of the most popular approaches to correcting the prominent ear. However, the Mustarde technique is criticized for its temporary results, high rates of recurrences, and the likelihood of suture extrusion.Patients and methodsThe present prospective comparative study was carried out on 40 patients with protruding ears planned to be operated on and managed. The patients were divided into two groups: the first group (group A) included 20 patients, who were managed using separation of the helix from the antihelix technique. The second group (group B) included 20 patients, who were managed with the Mustarde technique.ResultsIn the present study, 42.5% of parents were very satisfied, 7.5% were satisfied, and 2.5% were very dissatisfied. Notably, parents of the patients in the Valente group had a significantly higher rate of satisfaction than those in the Mustarde group. All parents were satisfied in the Valente group, except for one parent (5%). In terms of complications, 12.5% of patients had a hematoma and no one had an infection, while 15% of patients had antihelix irregularity, 7.5% had suture extrusion, and 20% had cartilage irregularity. Patients in the Valente group had a significantly lower rate of hematoma and suture extrusion.ConclusionsSeparating the helix from the antihelix technique is a simple, reliable, and good option for correction of a prominent ear.