2017-18 HSC Section 4 Green Book

Volume 139, Number 3 • EarWell Infant Correction System

Historically, the constricted ear has had a multitude of imprecise descriptors, such as lop, cup, lidding, and many others. Often, there is an intermixing of deformational and malformational adjectives that further obfuscates. To accurately measure outcomes in a study about the treat- ment of constricted ears, it was essential that our definition of the constricted ear be precise and unambiguous. A malformation must have missing tissue, and even the mildest constriction, by defi- nition, must demonstrate a tissue deficit to be clas- sified as constricted ear. For this reason, we chose to use a new classification system as an alternative to the Tanzer classification system because the Tanzer I constricted ear describes a lidding defor- mation, not a constriction malformation. 11 In contrast, the class I constriction as defined in this study clearly must have a demonstrable deficit of skin and cartilage. We perform a simple diagnos- tic test during the clinical examination to differ- entiate between a lidding deformation and a class I constriction. ( See Video, Supplemental Digital Content 7 , which describes how to distinguish between lidding and constriction, available in the “Related Videos” section of the full-text article on PRSJournal.com or, for Ovid users, at http://links. lww.com/PRS/C73 .) With a cotton-tip applicator placed under the area of helical hooding, there should be no resistance in elevating the helical rim and shaping the superior crus to produce a normal appearing ear. If the hooding cannot be lifted with the cotton-tip applicator, the auricle is at a minimum a class I constriction. The result of this clinical test is documented in each patient’s initial examination, and it provided the basis of

EarWell System provides consistently efficacious results in correcting lidding, conchal crus, heli- cal rim, prominence, and Stahl deformities, with high rates of good to excellent qualitative out- comes. Ear molding treatment had nearly com- plete correction of all effaced antihelical folds. Of all the deformities treated, the prominent ear had the greatest number of ears with retained residual deformity (19.6 percent). Nevertheless, 88 per- cent of the treated prominent ears had an excel- lent to good outcome. The newborns with residual deformity typically are associated with a history of autosomal dominant genetics for ear prominence running through each generation of their family. That being said, we were unable to differentiate those who would have a stable complete correc- tion versus those who would have relapse with residual deformity. In addition, it is important to point out a significant decrease in the num- ber of prominent ear deformities treated in this consecutive series of newborns than reported in previously published nursery study data by the same senior author (H.S.B), 9 percent versus 45 percent. This change is directly attributable to two factors: (1) a failure to distinguish between some cup ear malformations and prominent deformities in the nursery study and (2) a propensity among referring pediatricians to completely overlook the prominent ear deformity. This bias in diagnosis is completely understandable because the infant cup ear stands out as abnormal to both parent and physician, whereas the prominent ear deformity “flies under the radar,” generally requiring direct measurement for diagnosis. The normal projec- tion of the newborn ear is 5 to 7 mm. Borderline projection ranges from 7 to 10 mm, whereas ears projecting over 10 mm are clearly abnormal. With growth to adulthood, there is roughly a three-fold increase in the projection of a newborn infant ear. It cannot be stressed enough that the diagnosis of prominent ear is often subtle and requires direct measurement of ear projection from the cranial skin to the midpoint of the helical rim with a ruler or projectometer (Fig. 5). The data comparing the clinical outcomes of ears with a single deformity to ears with multiple identifiable deformities warrant attention. Ears with mixed deformities had a higher rate of fair photo- graphic outcomes (3 percent versus 12 percent, respectively). Although the overall results demon- strate that ears with multiple identifiable deforma- tional anomalies can be effectively treated with ear molding techniques, it is important to counsel fami- lies that the posttreatment outcome may be nega- tively impacted by compounding deformations.

Video 4. Supplemental Digital Content 7, which describes how to distinguish between lidding and constriction, is available in the “Related Videos” section of the full-text article on PRSJour- nal.com or, for Ovid users, at http://links.lww.com/PRS/C73 .

262