Ear mould for congenital auricular deformities: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis
Jincheng Huang Sichuan University West China School of Public Health Kun Zou Sichuan University West China School of Public Health Ping Yuan Sichuan University West China School of Public Health Longhao Zhang Sichuan University West China Hospital Min Yang Sichuan University West China School of Public Health Yunqi Miao Sichuan University West China School of Public Health li zhao ( [email protected] ) Sichuan University West China School of Public Health https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6297-528X Yanjun Fan Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention
Protocol
Keywords: congenital auricle deformities, ear mold, non-surgical treatment, systematic review, meta- analysis, protocol
Posted Date: July 14th, 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-40986/v1
License: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Read Full License
Page 1/10 Abstract
Background: Congenital auricle deformities (CADs) not only affect the appearance, but may also result in social inferiority or difculties, infuence the hearing and mental health of the children. Although some studies have pointed out CADs have a natural improvement trend, there is still a lack of high-quality research to demonstrate the degree of that. Therefore, related studies agree that early treatment are necessary. Ear mold correction is currently main non-surgical treatment for CADs, but the existing research often involves a small sample size, and the research conclusions are inconsistent. More importantly, there is still no systematic review on ear mold correction for CADs. This study aims to systematically evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ear mold correction for CADs, so as to provide an evidence base for further research.
Methods: The study has been designed according to the Preferred Reporting program for Systems Evaluation and Meta-analysis Protocol (PRISMA-P). We will search electronic literature databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of science, CBM, CNKI, Wanfang and VIP from their initiative to 1 June 2020 for interventional studies on ear mould for children with CADs. The study selection, data extraction and quality assessment will be performed by two authors. Meta-analysis will be conducted on primary outcome effectiveness rate of physician assessment and secondary outcomes of effectiveness rate of parents’ assessment, effectiveness score, hearing assessment, and adverse reactions using relative ratio or mean difference and their 95% confdence intervals. The heterogeneity of the included studies will be tested using Chi square test and I2, and random-effects model will be used when signifcant heterogeneity was found, otherwise, fxed-effects model will be used. Sensitivity analysis will be performed using trials with high quality and using alternative [1]models (fxed-effects or random effects model). Publication bias will be tested using funnel plot and Egger’s test.
Discussion: This study will be the frst to systematically evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ear mold correction for CADs, to provide evidence base for clinical guideline making, clinical decision and future research.
Systematic review registration : CRD42020190982.
Background
Congenital auricle deformities (CADs) are common among neonates. Tan ST, Leonardi and Eun Woo JE et al. [1–3] have all described their defnitions, generally thinking that it had a complete organizational structure, but with morphological abnormalities. Due to the lack of a unifed defnition and diagnostic criteria, previous studies found that the incidence of CADs in Japan, China, and the United States was 55.20%, 43.46%, and 25.00%, respectively [4–6]. CADs not only affect the appearance, but may also result in social inferiority or difculties, infuence the hearing and mental health of the children [7]. Although Matsuo K et al. [8] in Japan found that different types of CADs have the tendency of natural improvement, there is still a lack of high-quality studies to demonstrate the degree of natural
Page 2/10 improvement. Therefore, it is suggested that treatment and correction should be carried out as early as possible [9–11].
The treatments of CADs includes surgical and non-surgical treatments. The former is mainly performed at the age of 6, and its effect is closely related to the type, severity and operation mode of the deformities [12–14]. In addition, surgery, as an invasive method, can bring complications such as suture extrusion, hematoma, wound depravation and skin necrosis, and at the same time, it is expensive and imposes a greater economic burden on families and society [15–16].
Non-surgical correction of CADs has been increasingly used since its frst introduced by Matsuo et al. [8] and Kurozumi et al. [17] in the 1980s, initially by splint and later evolved to ear (ear mold) orthotics. This method is non-invasive, simple, effective and has achieved good results at the beginning of its use, which has been unanimously recognized by the academic circle [18]. It has been reported that the clinical effect on early non-surgical correction for CADs is signifcant [19–20]. Therefore, it has been popularized successively in Japan, European and American countries, and different types of ear orthotics have appeared one after another
In 2009, van Wijk MP et al. [21] reviewed the non-surgical treatment for CADs, and concluded that the clinical effect on early non-surgical correction for CADs by earmold was signifcant. However, only the splint correction was included in this review, and its data source was limited to Pubmed. Existing studies of ear mould for CADs often involved a small sample size, and there is still controversy on the effectiveness, safety, intervention time, and intervention duration of ear mould correction for CADs [22– 23]. To our best knowledge, no systematic evaluation of ear mould for CADs has been made. Therefore, this study aims to systematically evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the ear model correction for CADs.
Methods
Research design and methodology
The review has been registered in the PROSPERO International Systematic Review Prospective Register (ID:CRD42020190982). This protocol has been prepared in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) statement, as provided in Additional fle.
Eligibility criteria
The inclusion and exclusion criteria for this systematic review were formulated following the PICOS principle:
1. Participants: children who was diagnosed as congenital CADs. 2. Interventions: ear mould correction for children with CADs.
Page 3/10 3. Control: surgical treatment, other non-surgical treatment, placebo, no intervention, or before after comparison. 4. Study designs: randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs or non-RCTs.
Only publications using English and Chinese will be included as we lack of resources to review research in other languages.
Search strategy
We will search the following databases: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI, Wanfang and VIP, Web of science from their initiative to 1 june 2020. Key words and MeSH will be used including: congenital ear/auricular abnormalities, deformity, malformation, non-surgical treatment, ear mould/mold, Earwell. Reference lists of included studies will also be scanned for eligible studies. Preliminary Pubmed search strategy is showed in Table 1.
Outcome measures
The effectiveness rate according to physician assessment will be the main outcome. The following secondary outcomes will be considered: (1) Effectiveness rate according to parents’assessment. (2) Hearing assessment. (3) Adverse reactions including: redness or swelling of the skin, dermatitis, allergy, eczema, local infection, tissue necrosis, ear mould loss, recurrence of CAD, or other unexpected mild or severe adverse reactions.
Study selection
The two authors (JCH, YQM) will jointly flter the headings and abstracts of all checked records, and full- text search will be conducted on the qualifed records screened, then these full-texts will be reviewed by using the above eligibility/exclusion criteria. Any differences arising will be resolved by a separate author's decision (LZ, KZ). Comprehensive information extraction of eligible articles will be carried out. The consistency between the evaluators will be evaluated using the kappa value [24].
Data extraction
The data will be independently extracted by two authors (JCH, YQM). Any disagreement will be resolved by discussion until consensus is reached or by consulting a third senior reviewer. The following data will be extracted: author, year of publication, language, study design, participants characteristics (gender, age, type of congenital deafness shape deformity sample size), intervention characteristics (start time, duration), control characteristics, and outcomes.
Risk of bias (quality) assessment
The risk bias of the included studies will be independently assessed by two authors (JCH, YQM), and the controversial opinions will be resolved after discussion with a senior author (LZ, KZ). The following
Page 4/10 dimensions of bias will be assessed according to the Cochrane Collaboration Bias Risk Assessment Tool [25]: selection bias, implementation bias, measurement bias, follow-up bias, reporting bias, and other biases of the included studies. The quality of evidence for each outcome will be appraised using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RevMan will be used to make a bias risk map or a screenshot of the bias risk to describe the risk of bias.
Data synthesis
Heterogeneity between included studies will be examined using I2 and Chi square test. Fixed-effects model will be used when there is no substantial heterogeneity (I2<50%, P>0.05), otherwise, random-effects model will used [26]. For binary outcomes, such as the effectiveness rate according to physician assessment or parents’ assessment, adverse events, relative ratio and risk difference and their 95% confdence intervals (CI) will be estimated. For continuous outcomes, such as improvement score, mean difference with 95% CI will be estimated. Publication bias will be tested using funnel plot and Egger’s test.
Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis
Age, timing of intervention, duration of follow-up and race of the subjects will be classifed and grouped, and the combined effects of each subgroup will be estiamted and compared, respectively. Sensitivity analysis will be performed using trials with high quality (low risk of bias) and using alternative models (fxed-effects or random effects model).
Discussion
The mechanism of non-surgical correction for CADs is that the newborn body contains a large amount of maternal estrogen, and the hormone reaches an obvious peak within 72 h after birth, which increases the concentration of hyaluronic acid in cartilage, thus increasing the ductility and plasticity of cartilage [27– 28]. After that, the estrogen concentration gradually decreases and gradually returns to the normal level at 6 weeks after birth, and the plasticity and ductility of cartilage also decreases [29–31]. For this reason, the researchers emphasize early ear mold correction. However, researchers and medical professionals have no unifed opinion on the timing and duration of ear mold correction. In addition, there is still a lack of systematic evaluation on ear mode correction for CADs. This study will be the frst systematic synthesis of evidence of ear mold correction for CADs, which will provide basis for clinical guideline making, clinical decision and further empirical research.
Abbreviations
CADs: Congenital auricle deformities
GRADE: Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation
Declarations
Page 5/10 Funding
This study is supported by the Research Grant of Ccommittee on Children Birth and Population of China Population Association (201911SK07).
Authors’contributions
Conceived the study: LZ, YJF; study design: KZ, LZ, MY, PY, LHZ, JCH; will perform the study: JCH, KZ, LZ, LHZ ; will collect and manage the data: JCH, KZ, LHZ; will perform the statistical analysis: JCH, KZ, LHZ; wrote the draft: JCH, KZ, LZ, YJF, MY. All authors contribute to the revision and approved the fnal manuscript.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
References
1 S T Tan, M Shibu, D T Gault. A Splint for Correction of Congenital Ear Deformities. Br J Plast Surg. 1994;47(8):575-8.
2 A Leonardi , C Bianca, E Basile, C Ungari, P Arangio, F Filiaci, P Papoff, V Vellone, C Moretti, P Cascone. Neonatal Molding in Deformational Auricolar Anomalies. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2012;16(11):1554- 8.
3 Ji Eun Woo, Yul-Hyun Park, Eun Ji Par, Kyu Yong, Sun Hee Kim, Shin-Young Yim. Effectiveness of Ear Splint Therapy for Ear Deformities. Ann Rehabil Med. 2017;41(1):138-147.
4 Wu Shenglin, Qi Xiangdong, Zhao Hui. A preliminary study on neonatal auricle morphology classifcation. Chinese Journal of Clinical Anatomy, 2013;31 (4):384-388.
5 H Steve Byrd, Claude-Jean Langevin, Lorraine A Ghidoni. Ear Molding in Newborn Infants With Auricular Deformities. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126(4):1191-200.
6 Burt Brent. Microtia Repair With Rib Cartilage Grafts: A Review of Personal Experience With 1000 Cases. Clin Plast Surg. 2002;29(2):257-71.
7 Chen Peiwei, Li Jie, Zhao Shouqin, Yang Jinsong, Dou Jingmin, Wei Chenyi. Analysis of the effect of new ear appliance on children with congenital auricle deformity. Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery. 2017;31(11):849-853.
8 Matsuo K, Hayashi R, Kiyono M, et al. Nonsurgical correction of congenital auricular deformities. Clin Plast Surg 1990;17:383–95.
Page 6/10 9 Christen Lennon, Sivakumar Chinnadurai. Nonsurgical Management of Congenital Auricular Anomalies. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am. 2018;26(1):1-8.
10 Sylva Bartel-Friedrich. Congenital Auricular Malformations: Description of Anomalies and Syndromes. Facial Plast Surg. 2015;31(6):567-80.
11 Hui Zhao, Limin Ma, Xiangdong Qi, Jianzeng Qin, Baoming Yin, Mei Zhong, Yanjun He, Chenghong Wang. A Morphometric Study of the Newborn Ear and an Analysis of Factors Related to Congenital Auricular Deformities. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(1):147-155.
12 Jeffrey Markey, Jess Mace, Yvette Anderson, Tom D Wang. Hybrid Cartilage-Modifying Otoplasty Technique and Outcomes. JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 2018 Jan 1;20(1):57-62.
13 Süleyman Tas. Prominent Ear Correction: A Comprehensive Review of Fascial Flaps in Otoplasty. Aesthet Surg J. 2018;38(7):695-704.
14 Ye Bi, Lin Lin, Qinhua Yang, Bo Pan, Yanyong Zhao, Leren He, Haiyue Jiang. Surgical Correction of Constricted Ear Combined With Stahl's Ear. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2015;68(7):895-901.
15 Catherine S Chang, Scott P Bartlett. Deformations of the Ear and Their Nonsurgical Correction. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2019;58(7):798-805.
16 Lily N Daniali, Kameron Rezzadeh, Cheryl Shell, Matthew Trovato, Richard Ha, H Steve Byrd. Classifcation of Newborn Ear Malformations and Their Treatment With the EarWell Infant Ear Correction System. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139(3):681-691.
17 Kurozumi N．Ono S．Ishida H．Non．surgical correction of a congenital lop ear deformity by splinting with Reston foam．Br J Plast Surg. 1982;35(2):18l-182．
18 Chen Jianwu, Yang Yang, Qi Xiangdong. Application progress of auricle orthosis in congenital auricle deformity. Chinese Journal of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery. 2018; 53 (16): 465-468.
19 Tian Ye, Wang Fang, Yu Juanjuan, He Qingqing, Guo Xiaoqing, Li Dongying, Peng Ling, Chen Tian, Liu Qingming. Congenital auricle deformity screening and analysis of noninvasive correction. Clinical Journal of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery 2019; 33:72–74 .
20 Stephanie L S Chan, Gale J S Lim, Yong Chen Por, Ming Fang Chiang, Shuxian Ho, Seyed Ehsan Saffari, Hui-Ling Chia. Efcacy of Ear Molding in Infants Using the EarWell Infant Correction System and Factors Affecting Outcome. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;144(4):648e-658e.
21 van Wijk MP, Breugem CC, Kon M. Non-surgical correction of congenital deformities of the auricle: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery 2009;62:727– 36.
Page 7/10 22 Erin Elizabeth Anstadt, Dana Nicole Johns, Alvin Chi-Ming Kwok, Faizi Siddiqi, Barbu Gociman. Neonatal Ear Molding: Timing and Technique. Pediatrics. 2016;137(3):e20152831.
23 Taeyong Woo, Young Seok Kim, Tai Suk Roh, Dae Hyun Lew , In Sik Yun. Correction of Congenital Auricular Deformities Using the Ear-Molding Technique. Arch Plast Surg. 2016;43(6):512-517.
24 Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159.
25 Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, Savovic J, Schulz KF, Weeks L, Sterne JA. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928.
26 Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. A basic introduction to fxed-effect and random- effects models for meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods. 2010;1(2):97-111.
27 Catherine S Chang, Scott P Bartlett. A Simplifed Nonsurgical Method for the Correction of Neonatal Deformational Auricular Anomalies. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2017;56(2):132-139.
28 Xiong Qiong, Bai Yan. Analysis of the effect of the treatment device on children with congenital auricle deformity between 2 and 6 months of age. Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery. 2018; 32(15):1163-1166.
29 Mehmet Tapan, Hakan Bulam, Murat Iğde, Sinem Singin, Ramazan Erkin Ünlü. A Simple Method of Neonatal Ear Molding for Treatment of Stahl Ear Deformity. J Craniofac Surg. 2015;26(8):e802-3.
30 Johanna Schratt, Paul Kuegler, Anja Binter, Matthias Rab. Non-invasive Correction of Congenital Ear Deformities With the EarWell Correction System: A Prospective Study. Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir. 2019;12.
31 Melissa A Doft, Alison B Goodkind, Shawn Diamond, Jennifer I DiPace, Ashutosh. Kacker, Anthony N, LaBruna. The Newborn Butterfy Project: A Shortened Treatment Protocol for Ear Molding. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135(3):577e-583e.
Tables
Table1 Search strategies for Pubmed database
Page 8/10 No Query
1 "Ear Auricle"[Mesh]
2 Ear Auricles[Title/Abstract]
3 Ear Pinna*[Title/Abstract]
4 Pinna, Ear[Title/Abstract]
5 Pinnas, Ear[Title/Abstract]
6 Auricles, Ear[Title/Abstract]
7 "Ear, External"[Mesh]
8 Ears, External[Title/Abstract]
9 External Ear*[Title/Abstract]
10 Outer Ear*[Title/Abstract]
11 Ear, Outer[Title/Abstract]
12 Ears, Outer[Title/Abstract]
13 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 or 11 or 12
14 deformity*[Title/Abstract]
15 malformation[Title/Abstract]
16 14 or 15
17 13 and 16
18 conchal crus
19 mixed ear deformity
20 top ear
21 helical rim deformity
22 cryptotia
23 cup ear
24 Stahl’s ear
25 prominent ear
26 18 or 19 or 20 or 21 or 22 or 23 or 24 or 25
27 17 or 26
28 mold*
Page 9/10 29 EarWell
30 mould*
31 Non-surgical
32 28 or 29 or 30 or 31
33 27 and 32
Page 10/10