Tabatabai Nassim, Spinelli Henry M
New York, N.Y. From the Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Weill Medical College of Cornell University.
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007 Apr 15;119(5):1563-1570. doi: 10.1097/01.prs.0000256073.49355.fc.
The authors compared the nonendoscopic brow lift technique to the popular endoscopic procedure to determine whether it offers a less complex and less expensive but equally effective alternative.
A retrospective comparison of the senior author's experience with the endoscopic brow lift (100 patients; years 1999 to 2004) and the nonendoscopic brow lift (93 patients; years 2002 to 2005) was conducted. Using a three-incision approach for both procedures (one midline and two temporal), endoscopic visualization was used to assist in the last 2 cm of subperiosteal dissection over the superior orbital rim only in the endoscopic technique. In the nonendoscopic technique, this final dissection was performed without the endoscope, and the expected path of the supraorbital and supratrochlear neurovascular bundles through preoperative marking of their meridians was respected. Effective brow elevation, operative times, size of incisions, complications, and overall patient satisfaction were compared between groups.
The authors found no significant difference in average brow elevation between the two brow lift groups (4 mm). However, the nonendoscopic brow lift was completed, on average, 20 minutes faster than the endoscopic brow lift (30 minutes versus 50 minutes) and required a smaller incision than the endoscopic brow lift (2 cm versus 2.5 cm). No nonendoscopic patient experienced permanent complications, but one endoscopic patient developed permanent paresthesias of the forehead secondary to supraorbital/supratrochlear nerve injury. Overall patient satisfaction was equivalent in both groups.
The limited incision nonendoscopic brow lift is a safe and effective alternative to the endoscopic technique. With thorough anatomical knowledge of this region, it offers equivalent brow elevation, shorter operative times, smaller incisions, similarly low complications rates, and patient satisfaction and eliminates the need for costly and cumbersome endoscopic equipment.
作者将非内镜下眉提升术与流行的内镜手术进行比较,以确定它是否提供了一种更简单、成本更低但同样有效的替代方案。
对资深作者在内镜下眉提升术(100例患者,1999年至2004年)和非内镜下眉提升术(93例患者,2002年至2005年)方面的经验进行回顾性比较。两种手术均采用三切口入路(一个中线切口和两个颞部切口),仅在内镜技术中,在内镜可视化辅助下在眶上缘骨膜下剥离的最后2厘米进行操作。在非内镜技术中,最后剥离在没有内镜的情况下进行,通过术前标记眶上和滑车上神经血管束的子午线来确定其预期路径。比较两组之间的有效眉提升效果、手术时间、切口大小、并发症及患者总体满意度。
作者发现两组眉提升术的平均眉提升高度无显著差异(4毫米)。然而,非内镜下眉提升术平均比内镜下眉提升术快20分钟完成(30分钟对50分钟),且切口比内镜下眉提升术小(2厘米对2.5厘米)。非内镜组患者均未出现永久性并发症,但一名内镜组患者因眶上/滑车上神经损伤出现前额永久性感觉异常。两组患者总体满意度相当。
有限切口非内镜下眉提升术是内镜技术的一种安全有效的替代方法。凭借对该区域的深入解剖学知识,它能提供同等的眉提升效果、更短的手术时间、更小的切口、同样低的并发症发生率及患者满意度,且无需昂贵且繁琐的内镜设备。