Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Microtia and anotia repair require techniques that consider both aesthetics and function. The outcomes of different reconstructive frameworks such as costal cartilage or a porous polyethylene implant have not been evaluated on a national scale. We aim to understand differences in outcomes/complication rates and operative times between different reconstructive frameworks used in microtia/anotia reconstruction. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Pediatric database between 2012-2019. Patients with ICD-9/10 codes for microtia/anotia were isolated. Reconstruction methods were identified using CPT codes for rib graft, ear cartilage graft, and alloplastic implants (biocompatible implants, porous polyethylene, etc). Outcomes included operative-time, wound complications, and unplanned re-operations within 30 days of surgery. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to control for confounders. RESULTS: We included 593 patients for analysis. Reconstruction with rib grafts (N = 506, 85%) was the most common. In 58 patients (9.8%), an implant was used for the auricular framework, whereas in 47 (7.9%) ear cartilage grafts were used. The overall wound complication rate was 3.4%. On univariate analysis, alloplastic implants exhibited a higher rate of wound complications (8.6% vs. 2.8%, p = 0.037) and longer operative times (350 min vs. 235 min, p < 0.001). After controlling for demographics and comorbidities, implants conferred an independently increased risk of wound complications (OR 3.52, 1.10-9.54, p = 0.020). CONCLUSION: Although the use of alloplastic implants (e.g., porous polyethylene) may confer an increased risk of early complications, the long-term clinical implications of these findings are unclear relative to aesthetic benefits. Multi-institutional studies are needed to validate these findings using patient-specific and surgeon-specific data. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 134:1214-1219, 2024.