• Archives of Plastic Surgery
• /
• v.32 no.3
• /
• pp.293-298
• /
• 2005

Osseointegrated prosthetic auricular reconstruction can be classified as either direct or indirect. In the $Br{\aa}nemark $ system of direct osseointegration, implants are placed into the mastoid process of the temporal bone. In the Epitec system of indirect osseointegration, implants are inserted into a three-dimensional carrier plate that is fixed to the mastoid by means of screws. We experienced forty-four cases using the indirect system and seventeen cases using the direct system. We compared with two systems by complications, such as skin reaction, implant loosening, implant loss. There were no specific differences in the skin reaction around the implants and abutments in relation to age or system used. The degree of skin reaction was different according to the conditions around the implant: in cases of virgin microtia, a skin flap was used to cover the implant, in contrast to grafted skin coverage for failed autogenous reconstruction. In both systems, the skin reaction was more severe and frequent in skin flap than in grafted skin. Loosening of the implant was more frequent in the direct system; however, accidental detachment of the implant from the abutment was more frequent in the indirect system. To reduce complications of skin reaction in osseointegrated prosthetic auricular reconstruction, it is important for soft tissue around implant to immobilize. Therefore, grafted skin is better than skin flap as soft tissue around implant. And immobilization of soft tissue around implant by wound dressing is major facter.