Abstract
Background
Ear piercing is a common practice in all over the world and can result in complications such as torn or cleft earlobes. This study aimed to compare two surgical modalities for correction of earlobe splits; the Composite Closure technique and Double flap technique in terms of aesthetic results, preservation of original orifice, and prevention of relapse. It also assessed the possible superiority of one technique over another.
Materials and Methods
12 patients aged 25–61 years were randomly selected and treated with Composite Closure Technique (Group A) or Double Flap Technique (Group B) under local anesthesia. Clinical evaluation was done post operatively on 14th and 90th days.
Results
All patients had good post-operative outcomes, with preserved ear lobe thickness and minimal scar in both the methods. Data was entered in Microsoft Excel Sheet format and subjected to statistical analysis using SPSS Version 23. Comparisons were made using statistical tests to determine statistical significance.
Conclusion
Both the techniques offered good post operative results. The need for re piercing was avoided and proved to be well accepted by the patients.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Buchan NG (1975) The cleft ear lobe: a method of repair with preservation of the earring canal. Br J Plast Surg 28(4):296–298
Sreekar H, Reddy R, Raghunath N, Raghunath N, Sreeharsha H (2015) Did Sushrutha first describe ear lobe repairs? A peep into the Samhita. Our Derm Online 6(4):475–476
Boo-Chai K (1961) The cleft ear lobe. Plast Reconstr Surg Transplant Bull 28:681–688
Boo-Chai K, Jae H (1993) Correction of the congenital ear lobe cleft. Plast Reconstr Surg 91(7):1377
Ribeiro AA, Lourenço L, Matsuda TM, Ferrari NM (2009) Split earlobe repair: literature review and new technique proposal. Surg Cosmet Dermatol 1(3):141–144
Agarwal R, Chandra R (2010) A new technique for repair of acquired split-ear-lobe deformity: the free conchal cartilage sandwich graft. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 63(3):499–505
Blanco-Dávila F, Vásconez HC (1994) The cleft earlobe: a review of methods of treatment. Ann Plast Surg 33(6):677–680
Sadasivan K, Kochunarayanan A (2020) A revised classification and treatment algorithm for acquired split earlobe, with a description of the composite technique and its outcome. Cureus. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.10422
Patrocínio LG, Morais RM, Pereira JE, Patrocínio JA (2006) Earlobe cleft reconstructive surgery. Revista Brasileira de Otorrinolaringologia 72:447–451
Kalimuthu R, Larson BJ, Lewis N (1984) Earlobe repair: a new technique. Plast Reconstr Surg 74(2):299–300
Hamilton R, LaROSSA DO (1975) Method for repair of cleft earlobes. Plast Reconstr Surg 55(1):99–101
Mclaren LR (1954) Cleft earlobe: a hazard of wearing earrings. Br J Plast Surg 7:162–165
Pardue AM (1973) Repair of torn earlobe with preservation of the perforation for an earring. Plast Reconstr Surg [Internet] 51(4):472–473
Staiano JJ, Niranjan NS (2001) Split earlobe repair using a double-flap technique. Ann Plast Surg 47(1):89–91
Fatah MF (1985) L-plasty technique in the repair of split ear lobe. Br J Plast Surg 38(3):410–414
Hemdani R, Chatterjee M, Markanday K (2020) A comparative study of elongation of earlobe following two different modalities for repair of posttraumatic split of earlobe: simple side-to-side closure and closure with anterior posterior flap modification. J Cutan Aesthet Surg 13(1):5
Khilnani AK, Thaddanee R (2013) Clinical and demographic profile of cases requiring ear lobe repair in North Gujarat. Natl J Med Res 3(02):140–142
Oh DY, Kim SW, Ahn ST, Rhie JW (2011) Correction of earlobe cleft with tongue-in-groove technique. J Craniofac Surg 22(5):1785–1787
Altıntaş A, Çelik M, Yeğin Y, Kayabaşoğlu G (2017) Auricular lobuloplasty. Turkish. Archiv Otorhinolaryngol 55(4):172
Vujevich J, Obagi S (2006) Repair of partial earlobe cleft using a “purse-string” repair. Dermatol Surg 32(7):969–971
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge the staff and post graduate students of Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Saraswati Dental College and Hospital Lucknow for their constant support.
Funding
Self-funded.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
No conflict of interest financially and non-financially.
Ethical Approval and consent to Participate
This study was approval by the Institutional Research Development Committee and Institutional Human Ethics Committee. (Protocol no. #SS2OS21122020D).
Consent for Publication
Available.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Mondal, S., Aurora, J.K., Tandon, P. et al. A Comparative Study of Composite Versus Double Flap Technique for Repair of Traumatic Split Earlobes. J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-024-02221-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-024-02221-5