Advertisement

European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology

, Volume 276, Issue 5, pp 1533–1539 | Cite as

Psychosocial effects of otoplasty in adult patients: a prospective cohort study

  • Seher SirinEmail author
  • Figen Abaci
  • Adin Selcuk
  • Oykum Bilge Findik
  • Abdullah Yildirim
Miscellaneous
  • 29 Downloads

Abstract

Objective

This prospective study investigated changes in psychosocial status following otoplasty.

Methods

All patients who participated in the study filled a sociodemographic form that included age, gender, educational status and job preoperatively. Body Image Scale (BIS), Social Appearance Anxiety Scale (SAAS) and Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale (RSES) were completed prior to surgery and 6 months postoperatively.

Results

A total of 20 patients completed psychometric measures of body image, social appearance anxiety, and self-esteem. Of the patients (6 males, 14 females) whose charts were reviewed, the mean age was 24.05 ± 8.25 years (median 22 years: range 18–49) years. Six months post operatively BIS total scores were increased significantly relative to that of the baseline values (p = 0.005).SAAS scores were decreased significantly relative to that of the baseline values (p = 0.003). Although the postoperative RSES score tended to improve, it was not significantly different from the baseline value. The RSES scores showed significantly strong correlation with the SAAS scores (p < 0.001) and moderate correlation with the BIS scores at baseline (p = 0.013). None of the patients admitted for surgery had low self-esteem at baseline, with all patients categorized as having either moderate (n = 10, 50%) or high (n = 10, 50%) self-esteem. Following surgery, only one patient improved from moderate to high self-esteem. The baseline and postoperative BIS, SAAS, and RSES scores did not significantly differ between women and men. None of the other sociodemographic characteristics showed significant relationships with the three scales.

Conclusions

Otoplasty can provide significant positive psychosocial benefits, even in an adult population. Therefore, this type of surgery should be offered to any patient seeking a solution to prominent ear-related psychosocial problems regardless of age.

Keywords

Psychosocial effect Otoplasty Prominent ear Bat ear 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Firdevs Aliyeva for statistical support, Aslihan Polat for her valuable discussions about statistical analysis of the results as well as Jeremy Jones for his linguistic revision.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interest. No financial support was received for this paper.

Ethical standards

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards (KOU/GOAEK-2012/5).

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Nachlas NE (2002) Otoplasty. In: Papel ID (ed) Facial plastic and reconstructive surgery, 2nd edn. Thieme Medical Publishers, New York, pp 309–321Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bradbury ET, Hewison J, Timmons MJ (1992) Psychological and social outcome of prominent ear correction in children. Br J Plast Surg 45:97–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (2018) Cosmetic surgery national data bank statistics. Aesthet Surg J 38(suppl_3):1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sarwer DB, Pertschuk MJ, Wadden TA, Whitaker LA (1998) Psychological investigation in cosmetic surgery: a look back and a look ahead. Plast Reconstr Surg 101:1136–1142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gasques JA, Pereira de Godoy JM, Cruz EM (2008) Psychosocial effects of otoplasty in children with prominent ears. Aesthet Plast Surg 32:910–914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Songu M, Kutlu A (2014) Long-term psychosocial impact of otoplasty performed on children with prominent ears. J Laryngol Otol 128:768–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Papadopulos NA, Niehaus R, Keller E, Henrich G, Papadopulos NO, Staudenmaier R, Kovacs L, Herschbach P, Pototschnig H, Machens HG (2015) The psychologic and psychosocial impact of otoplasty on children and adults. J Craniofac Surg 26:2309–2314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bermueller C, Kirsche H, Sebert A, Rotter N (2012) Quality of life and patients’ satisfaction after otoplasty. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 269:2423–2431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Choi JY, Jung SC, Sykes JM (2017) Clinical outcome and patients’ satisfaction study after otoplasty using hybrid techniques in adult patients. J Craniofac Surg 28:1278–1281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schwenter I, Schmutzhard J, Deibl M, Sprinzl GM (2006) Health-related quality of life outcome of adult patients after otoplasty. J Craniofac Surg 17:629–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Braun T, Hainzinger T, Stelter K, Krause E, Berghaus A, Hempel JM (2010) Health-related quality of life, patient benefit, and clinical outcome after otoplasty using suture technique in 62 children and adults. Plast Reconstr Surg 126:2115–2124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pinquart M (2012) Self-esteem of children and adolescents with chronic illness: a meta-analysis. Child Care Health Dev 39:153–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pinquart M (2013) Body image of children and adolescents with chronic illness: a meta-analytic comparison with healthy peers. Body Image 10:141–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    First MB, Gibbon M (2004) The structured clinical interview for DSM-IV axis I disorders (SCID-I) and the structured clinical interview for DSM-IV axis II disorders (SCID-II). In: Hilsenroth MJ, Segal DL (eds) Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment. Personality assessment, vol 2. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 134–143Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mustardé JC (1967) The treatment of prominent ears by buried mattress sutures: a ten-year survey. Plast Reconstr Surg 39:382–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Secord PF, Jourard SM (1953) The appraisal of body-cathexis: body-cathexis and the self. J Consult Psychol 17:343–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hovardaoglu S, Ozdemir YD (1990) Vücut Algısı Ölçeği’nin güvenirlik ve geçerlik çalışması/Şizofrenik ve major depresif hastaların beden imgelerinden doyum düzeyleri. Unpublished Thesis, Article in Turkish. Ankara: Gazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler EnstitüsGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hart TA, Flora DB, Palyo SA, Fresco DM, Holle C, Heimberg RG (2008) Development and examination of the social appearance anxiety scale. Assessment 15:48–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dogan T (2010) Adaptation of the social appearance anxiety scale (SAAS) to Turkish: a validity and reliability study. HU J Educ 39:151–159Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rosenberg M (1965) Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton University Press, PrincetonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Çuhadaroglu F (1986) Adolesanlarda Benlik Saygıs. Unpublished Thesis, Article in Turkish. Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi Tıp FakultesiGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gilbert S, Thompson J (2002) Body shame in childhood and adolescence. In: Gilbert P, Miles J (eds) Body shame. Brunner-Routledge, Hove, pp 55–74Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rumsey N (2002) Body image & congenital conditions with visible differences. In: Cash TF, Pruzinsky T (eds) Body image: a handbook of theory, research, and clinical practice. Guilford, New York, pp 226–233Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rumsey N (2002) Optimizing body image in disfiguring congenital conditions. In: Cash TF, Pruzinsky T (eds) Body image: a handbook of theory, research, and clinical practice. Guilford, New York, pp 431–439Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kapp Simon KA, Simon DJ, Kristovich S (1992) Self-perception, social skills, adjustment, and inhibition in young adolescents with craniofacial anomalies. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 29:352–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Newell R (2000) Body image and disfigurement care. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hao W, Chorney JM, Bezuhly M, Wilson K, Hong P (2013) Analysis of health-related quality-of-life outcomes and their predictive factors in pediatric patients who undergo otoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 132:811e–817eCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Meningaud JP, Benadiba L, Servant JM, Bertrand J-Ch, Herve C (2001) Depression, anxiety, and quality of life among scheduled cosmetic surgery patients: multicenter prospective study. J Cranio Maxillofac Surg 29:177–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Horlock N, Vögelin E, Bradbury ET, Grobbelaar AO, Gault DT (2005) Psychosocial outcome of patients after ear reconstruction: a retrospective study of 62 patients. Ann Plast Surg 54:517–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rutter M, Rutter M (1992) Developing minds: challenge and continuity across the life span. Penguin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cooper-Hobson G, Jaffe WJ (2009) The benefits of otoplasty for children: further evidence to satisfy the modern NHS. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 62:109–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Von Soest T, Kvalem IL, Roald HE, Skolleborg KC (2009) The effects of cosmetic surgery on body image, self-esteem, and psychological problems. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 62:1238–1244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Alagoz MS, Basterzi AD, Uysal AC, Tuzer V, Unlu RE, Sensoz O, Goka E (2003) The psychiatric view of patients of aesthetic surgery: self-esteem, body image, and eating attitude. Aesthet Plast Surg Plast 27:345–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Freiman JA, Chalmers TC, Smith H Jr, Kuebler RR (1978) The importance of beta, the type II error and sample size in the design and interpretation of the randomized control trial: Survey of 71 negative trials. N Engl J Med 299:690–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mellor D, Fuller-Tyszkiewicz M, McCabe MP, Ricciardelli LA (2010) Body image and self-esteem across age and gender: a short-term longitudinal study. Sex Roles 63:672–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck SurgeryUniversity of Kocaeli School of MedicineKocaeliTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Psychiatry, Derince Training and Research HospitalUniversity of Health SciencesKocaeliTurkey
  3. 3.Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Derince Training and Research HospitalUniversity of Health SciencesKocaeliTurkey
  4. 4.Department of Plastic Surgery, Derince Training and Research HospitalUniversity of Health SciencesKocaeliTurkey

Personalised recommendations