This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.Long-term aesthetics, patient-reported outcomes and auricular sensitivity after microtia reconstruction: a systematic review E.M. Ronde 1,*

To (1) appraise current international classification and clinical management strategies for craniofacial microsomia (CFM) and microtia, and (2) to assess agreement with the European Reference Network “European Guideline Craniofacial Microsomia” recommendations on screening and monitoring. This was a cross-sectional online survey study. The survey consisted of 44 questions on demographics, diagnostics and classification, obstructive sleep apnea, feeding difficulties, speech and language development, hearing, ocular abnormalities, visual development, orthodontic screening, genetic counselling, psychological wellbeing, and extracraniofacial anomalies. Respondents were participants of 3 international cleft and craniofacial conferences, members of the American Cleft Palate and Craniofacial Association and members of the International Society for Auricular Reconstruction. Respondents were requested to complete 1 questionnaire per multidisciplinary team. Fifty-seven responses were received from 30 countries (response rate ∼3%).The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement diagnostic criteria were used by 86% of respondents, though 65% considered isolated microtia a mild form of CFM. The Orbit, Mandible, Ear, Facial Nerve and Soft Tissue classification system was used by 74% of respondents. Agreement with standardized screening and monitoring recommendations was between 61% and 97%. A majority of respondents agreed with screening for extracraniofacial anomalies (63%-68%) and with genetic counselling (81%). This survey did not reveal consistent agreement on the diagnostic criteria for CFM. Respondents mostly supported management recommendations, but frequently disagreed with the standardization of care. Future studies could focus on working towards international consensus on diagnostic criteria, and exploring internationally feasible management strategies.