Overview of Experience of Tanzer’s Group with Microtia*

Rueckert, Frederic; Brown, Forst E.; Tanzer, Radford C.

doi:10.1016/s0094-1298(20)31239-6

Cited by 22 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Tanzer 1 described his experience with 44 patients undergoing microtia reconstruction with costal cartilage reconstruction; he reported no incidence of cartilage extrusion and no long-term complications aside from chest wall deformity, suture extrusion, and loss of auricular definition. In a review of that patient population since the author's retirement in 1970, 2 lasting results were found with autogenous cartilage auricular reconstructions. No cartilage distortion was found in his patients, and most patients were satisfied with their cosmetic outcome.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of Microtia Reconstruction Outcomes Using Rib Cartilage vs Porous Polyethylene Implant

Constantine

Gilmore

Lee

et al. 2014

JAMA Facial Plast Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…ince the 1950s, the criterion standard for microtia repair has been a 4-stage technique using costal rib cartilage grafts developed by Tanzer 1 and Rueckert et al 2 and popularized by Brent. 3,4 Costal cartilage has the benefits of durability, a low infection rate, and good cosmetic outcomes in experienced hands.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Microtia Reconstruction Outcomes Using Rib Cartilage vs Porous Polyethylene Implant

Constantine

Gilmore

Lee

et al. 2014

JAMA Facial Plast Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The modern technique of autogenous total ear reconstruction was developed by Tanzer and popularized and modified by Brent, Nagata, and others [9][10][11][12]. Reconstruction involves a staged approach, which varies depending on the surgeon.…”

Section: Treatment Optionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnosing and Treating Microtia

Stotland

2010

AMA Journal of Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Severe hypoplasia of the external ear (microtia) is commonly encountered in any pediatric plastic surgical practice. A useful clinical classification of these anomalies was proposed by Tanzer [1]:A. Anotia (complete absence of ear) B. Microtia 1. constricted (cup or lop) ear 2. cryptotia (in which the top of the auricle is hidden under the scalp) 3. hypoplasia of the entire superior third of the auricle C. Hypoplasia of the middle third of the auricle D. Hypoplasia of the superior third of the auricle E. Prominent ears 1. complete hypoplasia of the auricle (external ear) with atresia of the external auditory canal 2. complete hypoplasia of the auricle without atresia of the external auditory canal EpidemiologyBased on analyses of large birth registries of congenital malformations [2-4], the incidence of microtia has been estimated at between 1 in 4,000 to 1 in 12,000 births. Microtia affects about 1.5 times more male children than female, and those with the condition are nearly three times more likely to be of Hispanic descent, and almost twice as likely to be of Asian descent, than to be black or white. Signs and SymptomsMicrotia is noted on visual inspection at birth as an obvious hypoplastic external ear deformity. A variable extent of middle ear pathology, with associated conductive hearing loss, is expected. Pertinent History, including Developmental HistoryKey clinical information should be obtained at the initial visit (typically when the child is an infant): pregnancy and labor complications, maternal drug use or toxin exposure, and family history of craniofacial or other anomalies. A developmental assessment should be made, specifically inquiring about the child's behavior, school performance, social interaction with peers, and self-esteem, to inform expectations of patient cooperation and compliance during the reconstructive process.

show abstract

“…The prerequisite for a successful ear reconstruction involves a well-vascularized skin envelope and an intricate three-dimensional framework 1 . Since the 1950s, the standard criterion for ear reconstruction has been a 4-stage technique using costal rib cartilage grafts as the framework, developed by Tanzer 2 and Rueckert et al 3 and popularized by Brent 4,5 . Costal cartilage has the benefits of durability, a low infection rate and good aesthetic outcomes in experienced hands 6 .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic Review of Medpor Versus Autologous Ear Reconstruction

2021

Journal of Craniofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ear reconstruction is 1 of the most technically challenging sub-specialties of craniofacial and reconstructive plastic surgery. The reconstructive ear must not only fulfil the requirement of being aesthetically pleasing but must also have good vascularity with a low complication rate. Several ear reconstructive techniques have been developed such as the autologous ear reconstruction technique using costal cartilage and ear reconstruction with highdensity porous polyethylene or Medpor (Porex Surgical, Inc, College Park, GA). Autologous ear reconstructive techniques have advantages of durability and low infection rates however are associated with poorer aesthetic outcomes such as poor projection of the ear. Medpor has advantages of a more consistent threedimensional definition without the need to harvest costochondral cartilage and create a donor site. However, due to its alloplastic material properties, Medpor has historically been reported as having a higher rate of extrusion and infection. This is the first systematic review to compare the outcomes of both techniques. The 6 studies that were reviewed were analyzed against 3 evaluative criteria: aesthetic outcome, complication rate, and convenience of intervention. This is so a comprehensive, evidence-based decision can be made by the surgeon and patient when ear reconstruction is required. The results showed heterogeneity in data and a lack of detailed descriptions of the assessment for aesthetic outcomes and convenience, hence were inconclusive. The results however showed that there were more complications with Medpor framework with 15% of total cases resulting in either extrusion or infection compared to 2% of autologous ear reconstruction framework.

show abstract

Overview of Experience of Tanzer’s Group with Microtia*

Cited by 22 publications

References 28 publications

Comparison of Microtia Reconstruction Outcomes Using Rib Cartilage vs Porous Polyethylene Implant

Comparison of Microtia Reconstruction Outcomes Using Rib Cartilage vs Porous Polyethylene Implant

Diagnosing and Treating Microtia

Systematic Review of Medpor Versus Autologous Ear Reconstruction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About