Summary Background Auricular reconstruction for microtia is most frequently performed using autologous costal cartilage (ACC) or porous polyethylene (PPE) implants. Short-term results are generally promising, but long-term results remain unclear. Long-term outcomes were explored in this systematic review, and minimal reporting criteria were suggested for future original data studies. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception through October 14, 2020. Articles on auricular reconstruction in patients with microtia using ACC or PPE were included if postsurgical follow-up was at least 1 year. Outcome reporting was split into separate publications, and results on complications were reported previously. This publication focused on long-term aesthetic, patient-reported, and sensitivity outcomes. Results Forty-one publications reported on these outcomes. Both materials led to aesthetically pleasing results and high rates of patient satisfaction. ACC frameworks grew similarly to contralateral ears, and the anterior surface of auricles regained sensitivity. Furthermore, postoperative health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes were generally good. Data synthesis was limited due to considerable variability between studies and poor study quality. No conclusions could be drawn on the superiority of either method due to the lack of comparative analyses. Conclusion Future studies should minimally report (1) surgical efficacy measured using the tool provided in the UK Care Standards for the Management of Patients with Microtia and Atresia; (2) complications including framework extrusion or exposure, graft loss, framework resorption, wire exposure and scalp/auricular scar complications and (3) HRQoL before and after treatment using the EAR-Q patient-reported outcome measure (PROM).