How reliable are ear measurements as a measure of outcome after pinnaplasty? A prospective study of inter‐rater reliability in 20 pinnaplasty patients

Fraser, Lyndsay; Montgomery, Jenny; Murphy, Lisa; James, H L; Kubba, Haytham

doi:10.1111/coa.12682

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 32 Using manual landmark-based measurements, therefore, hinders the uniform application of objective measurements. 15 , 33 Digitalized automatic landmark recognition provides a possibility to objectively landmark an area using a computerized algorithm instead of manual placement and shows potential for improving objectivity. 34 , 35 It has demonstrated the ability to accurately measure facial features, 36 assign severity grades for cleft palate, 37 and detect a large number of landmarks for cephalometric analysis.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Objective evaluation of nonsurgical treatment of prominent ears: A systematic review

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, objective assessments may also be used for uniform diagnostics of prominent ears, 13 , 14 and some clinical commissioning groups in the United Kingdom require ear measurements for insurance coverage. 15 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Objective evaluation of nonsurgical treatment of prominent ears: A systematic review

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Postcode lottery? Do clinical commissioning groups differ in their funding of prominent ear correction surgery

Smith¹,

Haeney²

2020

JPRAS Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A three-dimensional algorithm for precise measurement of human auricle parameters

Lin,

Dobbe,

Lachkar

et al. 2024

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Measurement of auricle parameters for planning and post-operative evaluation presents substantial challenges due to the complex 3D structure of the human auricle. Traditional measurement methods rely on manual techniques, resulting in limited precision. This study introduces a novel automated surface-based three-dimensional measurement method for quantifying human auricle parameters. The method was applied to virtual auricles reconstructed from Computed Tomography (CT) scans of a cadaver head and subsequent measurement of important clinically relevant aesthetical auricular parameters (length, width, protrusion, position, auriculocephalic angle, and inclination angle). Reference measurements were done manually (using a caliper and using a 3D landmarking method) and measurement precision was compared to the automated method. The CT scans were performed using both a contemporary high-end and a low-end CT scanner. Scans were conducted at a standard scanning dose, and at half the dose. The automatic method demonstrated significantly higher precision in measuring auricle parameters compared to manual methods. Compared to traditional manual measurements, precision improved for auricle length (9×), width (5×), protrusion (5×), Auriculocephalic Angle (5–54×) and posteroanterior position (23×). Concerning parameters without comparison with a manual method, the precision level of supero-inferior position was 0.489 mm; and the precisions of the inclination angle measurements were 1.365 mm and 0.237 mm for the two automated methods investigated. Improved precision of measuring auricle parameters was associated with using the high-end scanner. A higher dose was only associated with a higher precision for the left auricle length. The findings of this study emphasize the advantage of automated surface-based auricle measurements, showcasing improved precision compared to traditional methods. This novel algorithm has the potential to enhance auricle reconstruction and other applications in plastic surgery, offering a promising avenue for future research and clinical application.

show abstract

How reliable are ear measurements as a measure of outcome after pinnaplasty? A prospective study of inter‐rater reliability in 20 pinnaplasty patients

Cited by 3 publications

References 19 publications

Objective evaluation of nonsurgical treatment of prominent ears: A systematic review

Objective evaluation of nonsurgical treatment of prominent ears: A systematic review

Postcode lottery? Do clinical commissioning groups differ in their funding of prominent ear correction surgery

A three-dimensional algorithm for precise measurement of human auricle parameters

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About