Reconstruction of microtia

The reconstruction of microtia continues to represent one of the more challenging plastic surgery procedures. The limitations of the reconstruction are partly inherent in the soft-tissue deficiencies present in increasing degrees from large conchal remnant microtia, to lobular microtia, to the displaced remnant in auricular dystopia, and partly because of the high level of technical expertise required. After a brief review of the history of ear reconstruction in general and microtia specifically, issues related to the transition in the popularity from techniques involving three or more stages (Tanzer and Brent) to the current popularity of two-stage procedures (Nagata, Firmin, and Park) are discussed in detail. Each of the popular procedures is viewed in relation to timing of the reconstruction, procedure planning, and how both the soft tissues and framework construction are handled, in each of the stages. The most significant differences include whether the autogenous cartilage framework is constructed with or without the tragal construct (for the lobular-type microtia), whether or not the lobule is rotated in the first-stage reconstruction, whether an additional cartilage block is placed behind the framework for added ear projection, and how that added block is covered (choice of fascia flap and skin graft). Each of the techniques has to be varied in reconstruction of auricular dystopia in light of the associated skeletal and soft-tissue hypoplasia. In this article, the author demonstrates that although there may be significant advantages to the two-stage reconstructions of Nagata and Firmin, some may feel that the larger amount of cartilage harvested, the later optimal age for beginning the reconstruction, the additional scalp scars engendered by using the temporoparietal fascia flap in the second-stage elevation of the framework, and even the exchange of lobule tissue (and ability to later pierce ears) to obtain better coverage of the concha and tragus are unacceptable. Having gained experience with each of the varied approaches and having modified them when unusual variations in deformities have required it, the author discusses his current preferences. Clearly, this author feels that there may be significant advantages to delaying the reconstruction to age 10 years or older, yet experience gained over the past 25 years would seem to indicate that as in all other aspects of plastic and reconstructive surgery one must never be wed to a single approach, and experience and flexibility are essential in obtaining the optimal outcome in all variations of the deformity.