Brent Technique of Repair Versus Nagata Auricular Reconstruction for Microtia Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Up to 17.4 in every 10,000 births are affected by microtia, but no consensus exists on a gold standard technique for autogenous repair. In this study, the authors compare 2 common methods—the Brent and Nagata autogenous costal cartilage ear reconstruction techniques. A systematic review of the literature and a quantitative meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of these 2 approaches were performed. The outcomes analyzed included rates of infection, necrosis, cartilage exposure, cartilage resorption, hematoma, wire extrusion, and hypertrophic scar. Methods: A MEDLINE database systematic review with the following keywords: microtia, Brent, and Nagata was performed. Case reports and articles without original data or patient outcomes were excluded. Inclusion methods for study selection are outlined in Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/SCS/F461, below. The prevalence of outcomes for each study was analyzed through meta-analysis of proportions using Stata. Results: A total of 536 potential studies were retrieved for review. Twelve of these studies met inclusion criteria. Four studies utilized the Brent method of repair with the inclusion of 563 ear reconstructions. Nine studies implemented the Nagata technique in 2304 reconstructions. Two studies directly compared the Brent (327 ears) and Nagata (471 ears) techniques. The calculated rate and 95% confidence intervals are summarized in Supplemental Digital Content 2, http://links.lww.com/SCS/F461. There were no statistically significant differences in complication rates between the Brent and Nagata microtic reconstruction techniques identified in this study. Conclusions: The Brent and Nagata microtia reconstruction techniques have no difference in the risk of infection, necrosis, cartilage exposure, cartilage resorption, hematoma, wire extrusion, or hypertrophic scars.