Non-Surgical Correction of Congenital Ear Anomalies: A Critical Assessment of Caretaker Burdens and Aesthetic Outcomes

Introduction Congenital ear anomalies result from cartilage and skin compression in utero. They can be corrected in infancy before the cartilage hardens and loses its malleability. Caretaker burden of ear molding and its impact on esthetic outcomes has not been studied. Methods Demographic and procedural variables were retrospectively collected for infants who underwent ear molding. Parents were surveyed regarding their experience, caretaker burden, and esthetic outcome. Outside physicians were provided with pre- and post-treatment photographs and asked to rate outcomes. A Likert scale was developed for responses and converted to a numeric score from 1 to 5 with 5 as the most desirable. Results Seventy-four patients comprising 121 ears were included. Mean age at treatment was 20.1 ± 21.4 days with treatment duration of 21.1 ± 7.7 days. Parental participation in the survey was 70.1%. Questions that queried parents’ experiences revealed a “very positive” experience with minor burden related to bathing and cleaning (Mean Likert Score 4.1, Range 1–5). Favorable parent-reported outcomes were obtained regarding anticipated social distress (4.28, 1–5), satisfaction with results (4.27, 1–5), and perception of final appearance (4.18, 1–5). Physician assessments of esthetic outcomes were slightly lower, but favorable between “somewhat effective” and “very effective” (3.46, 1–5). Earlier treatment trended favorably, but did not reach significance. Ear malformations had higher parent-reported satisfaction than ear deformations (4.75 ± 0.46 vs 4.21 ± 1.25, p = 0.025). Conclusion Despite the additional obligation for new parents, infant ear molding is rated low in terms of caretaker burden. Esthetic outcomes are excellent as assessed by parents and physicians. However, caretakers reported higher esthetic outcomes than physician evaluations. Level of Evidence IV This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266