Retrospective study of treatment outcomes with implant retained auricular prostheses at a tertiary referral care centre.

PURPOSE

To discuss the indications, technical steps for fabrication of implant retained auricular prosthesis (IRAP), and treatment outcome at various follow up visits.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed retrospective data collection of all consecutively treated patients referred to us for auricular reconstruction from 2006 till 2018. Each case was analysed for: feasibility of autogenous reconstruction vs IRAP, surgical procedure, type of anaesthesia, type of implants, soft tissue response, implant success and survival rate, prosthetic attachment, aesthetic outcome, complications and patient acceptance. Procedure for fabrication of IRAP has also been written in detail to benefit readers.

RESULTS

IRAP was considered feasible and performed in eight out of 27 patients referred for auricular reconstruction. 20 implants were placed and total 10 prostheses were fabricated. Implant success rate and survival rate was 90% and 100% respectively till last follow-up of each patient. Bar and clip attachments were used in 60% and stud attachments in 40% of prostheses. After stage II surgery, grade I soft tissue inflammation was reported around two implants (10%), and grade III around one implant (5%). Implant with grade III inflammation showed features of recurrent infection and thus was left buried under soft tissues. These prostheses were aesthetically pleasing in all cases in the early post-operative period.

CONCLUSIONS

A systematic, step wise procedure with multi-disciplinary approach is a key to success for the fabrication of implant retained auricular prosthesis.