Development of a New Patient-reported Outcome Measure for Ear Conditions: The EAR-Q

Reconstructive Techniques in Pediatric Congenital Microtia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Autografts and allografts are commonly used in microtia reconstruction. We aimed to systematically review and compare these reconstructive materials in pediatric congenital microtia reconstruction. A systematic review of the literature was performed. MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases were searched for original studies on congenital microtia reconstruction in pediatric patients since database inception to 2021. Microtia grade was stratified as high or low. Meta-analysis of pooled proportions and continuous variables was performed using inverse variance weighting with a random effects model to compare between the autograft and allograft groups. Sixty-eight studies with a total of 5,546 patients used autografts (n = 5,382) or alloplastic implants (n = 164). Four other studies used prosthesis, cadaveric homografts, or tissue engineering. The allograft group was on average younger than the autograft group (8.4 vs. 11.1 years). There were no syndromic patients in the allograft group, compared to 43% in the autograft group. Patients treated with allografts had higher microtia grade than those treated with autograft (98 vs. 72%). Autografts were more commonly utilized by plastic surgeons and allografts by otolaryngologists (95 vs. 38%). No autografts and 41% of allografts were done concurrently with atresiaplasty or bone conduction implant. Satisfaction rates were similarly high (>90%) with similar complication rates (<10%). Microtia reconstruction using autografts and allografts had similar satisfaction and complication rates. Allografts were preferred for younger patients and concurrent hearing restoration. Further large-scale studies are required to evaluate the long-term efficacy of these reconstructive techniques.

Temporoparietal Fascia Sandwich Technique in the Immediate Reconstruction of Human Bite Ear Amputation

BACKGROUND

Traumatic ear amputation is a rare injury. Ear replantation is the gold standard in dealing with amputated ears. However, this is not always feasible. In this case series, the authors discuss the immediate reconstruction of traumatic ear amputation using temporoparietal fascia with the same skin from the amputated ear, which provided a high esthetic result and patient satisfaction.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The authors present a case series of 3 patients from July 2018 to May 2020 who suffered from traumatic ear amputation due to a human bite and were successfully reconstructed using temporoparietal fascia and the same skin from the amputated ear as FTSG.The cartilage was sutured back, the temporoparietal fascia was raised and flipped over the exposed cartilage, and the FTSG previously harvested from the same amputated ear was put on the fascia. Quilting sutures were taken to ensure proper inset of the graft on the fascia. The authors measured the patient-reported outcome using an Ear-Q validated questionnaire.

RESULTS

All patients were males, with a mean age of 30.6 years. They were all smokers, and none of them had any comorbidities. No major complications occurred. However, partial graft loss occurred in one patient and healed properly with secondary intention. All patients had high satisfaction scores of more than 70 in the EAR-Q questionnaires.

CONCLUSION

Traumatic human bite ear amputations can be reconstructed with good esthetic outcomes by using single-stage temporoparietal fascia and the same skin of the amputated ear as a full-thickness skin graft whenever replantation is not feasible.

Intralesional Cryosurgery of a Bulky Postburned Auricular Keloid and EAR-Q Patient-reported Outcome Measure Assessment

Postburned auricular keloids are a challenging problem for the patient and physician. We describe a successful combined treatment of a bulky postburn auricular keloid employing intralesional cryosurgery followed by multiple W-plasty. An EAR-Q pre- and postoperative patient-reported outcome assessments have revealed a significant improvement in all ear parameters of appearance, adverse effects, and quality of life. This combined treatment might be added to the armamentarium of possible treatment modalities for this perplexing problem.

Psychosocial and Health-Related Experiences of Individuals With Microtia and Craniofacial Microsomia and Their Families: Narrative Review Over 2 Decades

This paper describes 20 years of microtia and craniofacial microsomia (CFM) psychosocial and healthcare studies and suggests directions for clinical care and research.

A narrative review of papers January 2000 to July 2021 related to psychosocial and healthcare experiences of individuals with microtia and CFM and their families.

Studies (N = 64) were mainly cross-sectional (69%), included a range of standardized measures (64%), and were with European (31%), American (27%), or multinational (23%) samples. Data were generally collected from both patients and caregivers (38%) or patient self-report (35%). Sample sizes were 11 to 25 (21%), 26 to 50 (19%), 51 to 100 (22%), or over 100 (38%). Studies addressed 5 primary topics: (1) Healthcare Experiences, including Medical Care, Hearing Loss/Amplification, Diagnostic Experiences, and Information Preferences; (2) Psychosocial Experiences, including Teasing, Behavioral Adjustment, Psychosocial Support, and Public Perception; (3) Neurocognitive Functioning and Academic Assistance; (4) Pre- and Post-Operative Psychosocial Outcomes of Ear Reconstruction/Canaloplasty; and (5) Quality of Life and Patient Satisfaction.

Care involved multiple specialties and was often experienced as stressful starting at diagnosis. Psychosocial and neurocognitive functioning were generally in the average range, with possible risk for social and language concerns. Coping and resiliency were described into adulthood. Satisfaction and positive benefit of ear reconstruction/canaloplasty were high. Care recommendations include increasing: hearing amplification use, microtia and CFM knowledge among providers, efficient treatment coordination, psychosocial support, academic assistance, and advances to minimize surgical scarring. This broad literature overview informs clinical practice and research to improve psychosocial outcomes.

The Use of Auricular Cartilage Grafts in Septorhinoplasty: A Dual-Centre Study of Donor Site Patient-Reported Outcome Measures

Objectives

The use of autologous grafts is a key aspect of contemporary septorhinoplasty. When septal cartilage is deficient, auricular cartilage serves as a biocompatible, readily accessible alternative. Our study aimed to assess donor site patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) where auricular cartilage has been harvested for use in septorhinoplasty, adding to the limited existing literature on this topic.

Design

A dual-centre, single-surgeon retrospective analysis of patients undergoing septorhinoplasty surgery with augmentation using auricular cartilage grafts was conducted. Grafts were harvested using an anterior anti-helical approach. Patients were followed up at one week, three months and 12 months post-operatively. Donor site outcomes were assessed across several physical and psychological domains by adapting the EAR-Q questionnaire, which was administered via telephone consultation. Responses were quantified using a Likert scale.

Results

A total of 22 patients met our inclusion criteria. Four were lost to follow-up, five were non-responders and one case was excluded due to documentation of body dysmorphic disorder. A significant proportion of patients reported no reduction in quality of life (QOL) or confidence attributed to donor site cosmesis. High satisfaction was noted with anti-helical donor site scars. Although noticeable differences in shape and symmetry were reported, these had negligible effects across psychological domains.

Conclusions

Preliminary results suggest high levels of patient satisfaction, with minimal physical and psychological donor site sequelae following auricular cartilage harvest in septorhinoplasty. Subsequent studies should involve the use of validated questionnaires, coupled with larger patient cohorts in order to provide further data for statistical analysis.

An international study to develop the EAR-Q patient-reported outcome measure for children and young adults with ear conditions

BACKGROUND

There is currently a lack of patient-reported outcome measures for ear reconstruction. We developed the EAR-Q to measure ear appearance and post-operative adverse effects from the patient perspective.

METHODS

Field-test data were collected from children and young adults in eight countries between 13 May 2016 and 12 December 2019. Rasch measurement theory (RMT) analysis was used to refine the scales and to examine their psychometric properties.

RESULTS

Participants had microtia (n = 607), prominent ears (n = 145) or another ear condition (n = 111), and provided 960 assessments for the Appearance scale (e.g., size, shape, photos), and 137 assessments for the Adverse Effects scale (e.g., itchy, painful, numb). RMT analysis led to the reduction of each scale to 10-items. Data fit the Rasch model for the Appearance (X2(80) = 90.9, p = 0.19) and Adverse Effects (X2(20) = 24.5, p = 0.22) scales. All items in each scale had ordered thresholds and good item fit. There was no evidence of differential item function for the Appearance scale by age, gender, language, or type of ear condition. Reliability was high for the Appearance scale, with person separation index (PSI) and Cronbach alpha values with and without extremes ≥0.92. Reliability for the Adverse Effects scale was adequate (i.e., PSI and Cronbach alpha values ≥0.71). Higher scores (liked appearance more) correlated with higher scores (better) on Psychological, Social and School scales.

INTERPRETATION

The EAR-Q can be used in those 8-29 years of age to understand the patient perspective in clinical practice and research, and in addition, can be used to benchmark outcomes for ear reconstruction internationally.

Long-term aesthetics, patient-reported outcomes, and auricular sensitivity after microtia reconstruction: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Auricular reconstruction for microtia is most frequently performed using autologous costal cartilage (ACC) or porous polyethylene (PPE) implants. Short-term results are generally promising, but long-term results remain unclear. Long-term outcomes were explored in this systematic review, and minimal reporting criteria were suggested for future original data studies.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception through October 14, 2020. Articles on auricular reconstruction in patients with microtia using ACC or PPE were included if postsurgical follow-up was at least 1 year. Outcome reporting was split into separate publications, and results on complications were reported previously. This publication focused on long-term aesthetic, patient-reported, and sensitivity outcomes.

RESULTS

Forty-one publications reported on these outcomes. Both materials led to aesthetically pleasing results and high rates of patient satisfaction. ACC frameworks grew similarly to contralateral ears, and the anterior surface of auricles regained sensitivity. Furthermore, postoperative health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes were generally good. Data synthesis was limited due to considerable variability between studies and poor study quality. No conclusions could be drawn on the superiority of either method due to the lack of comparative analyses.

CONCLUSION

Future studies should minimally report (1) surgical efficacy measured using the tool provided in the UK Care Standards for the Management of Patients with Microtia and Atresia; (2) complications including framework extrusion or exposure, graft loss, framework resorption, wire exposure and scalp/auricular scar complications and (3) HRQoL before and after treatment using the EAR-Q patient-reported outcome measure (PROM).

A Single Surgeon's Experience of Starting a New Ear Reconstruction Service in the UK

ABSTRACT

Autologous ear reconstruction is known as one of the most difficult types of reconstruction to perform in plastic surgery. Very rarely is a trainee exposed to the level of complexity and variety of cases they will treat as a sole care provider in a tertiary care setting. This is because the learning curve is steep and those few surgeons that already perform ear reconstruction are limited in what technical experience they can offer trainees due to the plethora of factors competing against the surgeon. These include patient expectations, level of experience, length of anesthetic and accountability for results and complications. For this reason, once a plastic surgeon is nominated to provide autologous ear reconstruction, they face the daunting prospect of not only performing what is a very complex surgery with a very steep learning curve but also the judgment of their patients and colleagues. This paper charts the endeavors of the senior author to provide a service over the last 5 years. It will hopefully provide insight and context on setting up a service, dealing with complications, patient and peer expectations, and finally acknowledgment from both alike as experience is gained and excellence is reached.

Validated Outcome Measures and Postsurgical Scar Assessment Instruments in Auricular Surgery: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The utilization of an assessment instrument that successfully analyzes validated outcome measures for auricular surgery is important for advancing evidence-based medicine.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review postsurgical scar assessment instruments and outcome measures after auricular surgery to assess if any individual or combination of 2 assessment instruments encompass all relevant, validated auricular outcome measures.

METHODS

Two systematic reviews were conducted using the PubMed/MEDLINE and Ovid databases: one for postauricular surgical outcome measures and another for postsurgical scar assessment instruments. Auricular outcome measure articles were selected for inclusion if they included at least one auricular-specific validated outcome measure, and assessment tool articles were included if they referenced one or more specific tool(s) specifically designed to assess postsurgical scars. Assessment tools were evaluated based on which outcome measures each covered.

RESULTS

There was no single postsurgical scar assessment instrument or combination of 2 instruments that covered all outcome measures within the 5 different categories (psychosocial well-being, functional, objective appearance, subjective appearance, and clinical-related outcomes) after auricular surgery. None of the instruments measured functional outcomes, such as the ability to wear glasses and hearing outcomes.

CONCLUSION

There is currently no existing postsurgical scar assessment instrument that covers all outcome measures after auricular surgery.

Identifying Factors Most Important to Lower Extremity Trauma Patients: Key Concepts from the Development of a Patient-Reported Outcome Instrument for Lower Extremity Trauma, The LIMB-Q

BACKGROUND

Severe lower extremity injuries are challenging to treat. The aspects of limb salvage and amputation most important to patients are not well-defined. This study's aim is to develop a conceptual framework for a patient-reported outcome instrument for lower extremity trauma patients, by defining issues and concepts most important to this patient population.

METHODS

This is an interpretative description of transcripts collected from semistructured qualitative interviews at a single institution. High-energy lower extremity trauma patients were recruited by means of purposeful sampling to maximize variability. Thirty-three participant interviews were needed to reach content saturation. These participants were aged 19 to 79 years; 21 were men (63.6 percent); participation was after reconstruction [n= 15 (45.5 percent)], after amputation [n = 11 (33.3 percent)], or after amputation after failed reconstruction [n = 7 (21.2 percent)]. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded line-by-line. Concepts were labeled with major and minor themes and refined through a process of constant comparison. Analysis led to the development of a conceptual framework and item pool to inform the development of a patient-reported outcome measure.

RESULTS

In total, 2430 unique codes were identified and used to generate the conceptual framework covering 10 major themes: appearance, environment, finances, physical, process of care, prosthesis, psychological, sexual, social, and treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

This study establishes a comprehensive set of concepts, identifying what is most important to severe lower extremity trauma patients. These findings can be used to inform and focus research and clinical care, and provides the framework to develop a lower extremity trauma-specific patient-reported outcome instrument: the LIMB-Q.

Content Validity of the LIMB-Q: A Patient-Reported Outcome Instrument for Lower Extremity Trauma Patients

BACKGROUND

 Limb-threatening lower extremity traumatic injuries can be devastating events with a multifaceted impact on patients. Therefore, evaluating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in addition to traditional surgical outcomes is important. However, currently available instruments are limited as they were not developed specific to lower extremity trauma patients and lack content validity. The LIMB-Q is being developed as a novel PRO instrument to meet this need, with the goal to measure all relevant concepts and issues impacting amputation and limb-salvage patients after limb-threatening lower extremity trauma.

METHODS

 This is a qualitative interview-based study evaluating content validity for the LIMB-Q. Patients aged 18 years and older who underwent amputation, reconstruction, or amputation after failed reconstruction were recruited using purposeful sampling to maximize variability of participant experiences. Expert opinion was solicited from a variety of clinical providers and qualitative researchers internationally. Preliminary items and scales were modified, added, or removed based on participant and expert feedback after each round of participant interviews and expert opinion.

RESULTS

 Twelve patients and 43 experts provided feedback in a total of three rounds, with changes to the preliminary instrument made between each round. One scale was dropped after round one, one scale was added after round two, and only minor changes were needed after round three. Modifications, additions and removal of items, instructions, and response options were made after each round using feedback gathered.

CONCLUSION

 The LIMB-Q was refined and modified to reflect feedback from patients and experts in the field. Content validity for the LIMB-Q was established. Following a large-scale field test, the LIMB-Q will be ready for use in research and clinical care.