{Reference Type}: Journal Article
{Title}: Noninvasive ear molding in the correction of ear anomalies: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
{Author}: Saba ES;Mui S;Schloegel LJ;Saba ES;Mui S;Schloegel LJ;
{Journal}: Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol
{Volume}: 159
{Issue}: 0
{Year}: Aug 2022
{Factor}: 1.626
{DOI}: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2022.111189
{Abstract}: <B>OBJECTIVE: </B>Ear molding has been used for the treatment of congenital external ear anomalies. The purpose of this study is to systematically review ear molding therapy and perform a meta-analysis to determine its efficacy.<BR><B>METHODS: </B>A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The PubMed and Embase databases from January 2009 to April 2021 were searched. Individual studies were eligible for inclusion if they evaluated noninvasive ear molding for congenital ear anomalies, featured at least 50 ears, and were published in English.<BR><B>RESULTS: </B>15 studies (one RCT and 14 clinical series) with a total of 1729 children undergoing molding of 2508 ears were identified and included in the meta-analysis. Meta-analysis of the eight studies with reported success rates as determined by clinician assessment showed an overall success rate in 87.4% of ears. Meta-analysis of the three studies with reported efficacy as assessed by laypersons showed an overall success rate of 92%. All studies reported a variety of minor skin-related complications in the ear, such as eczema, excoriation, infection, irritation, rash (allergic or nonallergic), and ulceration. Generally, complications were not reported to be serious and were noted to resolve with minimal to no intervention.<BR><B>CONCLUSIONS: </B>To the authors' knowledge, this study represents the largest modern systematic review and meta-analysis analyzing the efficacy of ear molding. A review of the 15 studies included suggests that ear molding is an effective and safe treatment for congenital ear anomalies with a high success rate. However, the strength of this body of evidence is reduced by a lack of comparative studies, heterogeneous patient populations, treatment protocols, and ear assessment scales.