Diced cartilage for dorsal augmentation in rhinoplasty: effect on nasal projection and frontal nasal width |
| |
Affiliation: | 1. Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA;2. Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA;3. Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA;4. Division of Otolaryngology and Communication Enhancement, Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA;5. Department of Plastic and Oral Surgery, Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA;1. Department of Stomatology, Shaoxing People’s Hospital, Shaoxing, Zhejiang Province, PR China;2. Department of Head Neck and Thyroid, Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, Henan, PR China;1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital of Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany;2. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Red Cross Hospital, Kassel, Germany |
| |
Abstract: | This research study was designed to evaluate the aesthetic consequences of different dorsal augmentation techniques using diced cartilage on dorsal width and projection in rhinoplasty. Patients were assigned to three groups based on the dorsal augmentation technique used: diced cartilage wrapped in fascia (DCIF), free diced cartilage under fascia (DCUF), and free diced cartilage without fascia (FDC). Dorsal projection and dorsal aesthetic width were measured at two levels using pre- and postoperative photographs. A total of 98 patients were included in the study. DCIF was used in 51 patients, FDC in 27 patients, and DCUF in 20 patients. There was no significant difference in nasion projection, rhinion projection, or width of the dorsal aesthetic lines at the intercanthal and keystone levels among these groups. Significantly greater nasion and rhinion projection was observed with DCIF in thin-skinned patients followed-up for 6–12 months (nasion, P = 0.028; rhinion P = 0.039) but not at>12 months. Two patients with a graft infection and one with graft malposition were encountered in the DCIF group. Experience from this study suggests that the application of FDC prevents such complications without sacrificing the dorsal augmentation and that DCIF is a better choice for more severe deformities. |
| |
Keywords: | Rhinoplasty Fascia Autografts Cartilage Nose DCIF" },{" #name" :" keyword" ," $" :{" id" :" key0035" }," $$" :[{" #name" :" text" ," _" :" Diced cartilage wrapped in fascia DCUF" },{" #name" :" keyword" ," $" :{" id" :" key0045" }," $$" :[{" #name" :" text" ," _" :" Free diced cartilage under fascia FDC" },{" #name" :" keyword" ," $" :{" id" :" key0055" }," $$" :[{" #name" :" text" ," _" :" Diced cartilage without fascia |
本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录! |
|