Public Perception of the Burden of Microtia

Microtia is associated with psychosocial burden and stigma. The authors' objective was to determine the potential impact of being born with microtia by using validated health state utility assessment measures. An online utility assessment using visual analogue scale, time tradeoff, and standard gamble was used to determine utilities for microtia with or without ipsilateral deafness, monocular blindness, and binocular blindness from a prospective sample of the general population. Utility scores were compared between health states using Wilcoxon and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Univariate regression was performed using sex, age, race, and education as independent predictors of utility scores. Over a 6-month enrollment period, 104 participants were included in the analysis. Visual analogue scale (median 0.80, interquartile range [0.72-0.85]), time tradeoff (0.88 [0.77-0.91]), and standard gamble (0.91 [0.84-0.97]) scores for microtia with ipsilateral deafness were higher (P <0.01) than those of binocular blindness (visual analogue scale, 0.30 [0.20-0.45]; time tradeoff, 0.42 [0.17-0.67]; and standard gamble, 0.52 [0.36-0.78]). Time trade-off scores for microtia with deafness were not different from monocular blindness (0.83 [0.67-0.91]). Higher level of education was associated with higher time tradeoff and standard gamble scores for microtia with or without deafness (P <0.05). Using objective health state utility scores, the current study demonstrates that the perceived burden of microtia with or without deafness is no different or less than monocular blindness. Given high utility scores for microtia, delaying autologous reconstruction beyond school entrance age may be justified.