Ear Piercing Complications: Comparing Cartilage and Soft Tissue Piercings in a Large Survey Cohort

OBJECTIVES: To compare complication and removal rates between cartilage and lobule ear piercings in a large adult population. METHODS: An anonymous electronic survey was distributed to all individuals with a University of Iowa email address. Respondents reported demographic characteristics, piercing site, age at piercing, technique, personnel, and specific complications. Multivariate logistic regression evaluated complication and removal rates between cartilage and lobule sites. RESULTS: Data were analyzed on 9016 ear piercings from 3270 respondents, including 6275 (69.6%) lobule piercings and 2741 (30.4%) auricular cartilage piercings. Complications were reported in 40.2% of cartilage piercings versus 25.4% of lobule piercings (odds ratio [OR] 1.98, p < 0.0001). Infection occurred in 30.3% of cartilage piercings versus 23.8% of lobule piercings (OR 1.39, p < 0.0001). Additionally, cartilage site and presence of any complication each independently predicted piercing removal (OR 1.62, p < 0.0001; OR 12.82, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Cartilage piercings carried significantly greater odds of complication and removal compared to lobule piercings. These findings underscore the importance of thorough counseling and informed consent, especially when piercing through auricular cartilage.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
The Laryngoscope
Published
2026-04-17
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.70572
Primary Topic
Tattoo and Body Piercing Complications
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Ear Piercing Complications: Comparing Cartilage and Soft Tissue Piercings in a Large Survey Cohort

Kathryn S. Marcus, Nitin A. Pagedar, John P. Ziegler, Scott Owen et al.
The Laryngoscope
Tattoo and Body Piercing Complications
article

Ear Piercing Complications: Comparing Cartilage and Soft Tissue Piercings in a Large Survey Cohort

Kathryn S. Marcus, Nitin A. Pagedar, John P. Ziegler, Scott Owen, Zachary G. Tanenbaum, Henry T. Hoffman, McKay Moline
article en

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare complication and removal rates between cartilage and lobule ear piercings in a large adult population. METHODS: An anonymous electronic survey was distributed to all individuals with a University of Iowa email address. Respondents reported demographic characteristics, piercing site, age at piercing, technique, personnel, and specific complications. Multivariate logistic regression evaluated complication and removal rates between cartilage and lobule sites. RESULTS: Data were analyzed on 9016 ear piercings from 3270 respondents, including 6275 (69.6%) lobule piercings and 2741 (30.4%) auricular cartilage piercings. Complications were reported in 40.2% of cartilage piercings versus 25.4% of lobule piercings (odds ratio [OR] 1.98, p < 0.0001). Infection occurred in 30.3% of cartilage piercings versus 23.8% of lobule piercings (OR 1.39, p < 0.0001). Additionally, cartilage site and presence of any complication each independently predicted piercing removal (OR 1.62, p < 0.0001; OR 12.82, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Cartilage piercings carried significantly greater odds of complication and removal compared to lobule piercings. These findings underscore the importance of thorough counseling and informed consent, especially when piercing through auricular cartilage.

The Laryngoscope
University of Iowa (US), Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary (US), Colorado Mesa University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 16%
Tattoo and Body Piercing Complications
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.