Tanna Neil, Im Daniel D, Azhar Hamdan, Roostaeian Jason, Lesavoy Malcolm A, Bradley James P, Jarrahy Reza
From the *Institute of Reconstructive Plastic Surgery, New York University, New York, NY; †Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA; and ‡Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Ann Plast Surg. 2014 Jan;72(1):5-8. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0b013e3182590970.
The sheer number of accepted inferior turbinoplasty techniques emphasizes the fact that there is no general agreement on which approach yields optimal results, nor are there data available that describes prevalent techniques in turbinate surgery among plastic surgeons.
The aim of this study was to identify practice patterns among plastic surgeons who perform inferior turbinoplasty during rhinoplasty.
Members of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons were invited to participate in an anonymous, Internet-based survey containing questions related to personal preferences and outcomes in inferior turbinate surgery.
A total of 534 members of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons participated in the survey. Most (71.7%) trained in an independent plastic surgery program with prerequisite training in general surgery. More than half (50.6%) had more than 20 years of operative experience; only 15.2% reported performing greater than 40 rhinoplasties per year. The 5 most preferred inferior turbinate reduction techniques were outfracture of the turbinates (49.1%), partial turbinectomy (33.3%), submucous reduction via electrocautery (25.3%), submucous resection (23.6%), and electrocautery (22.5%). Fewer than 10% of the respondents reported the use of newer techniques such as radiofrequency thermal ablation (5.6%), use of the microdebrider (2.2%), laser cautery (1.1%), or cryosurgery (0.6%). Mucosal crusting and desiccation were the most frequently reported complications.
The results of this survey provide insights into the current preferences in inferior turbinate reduction surgery. Plastic surgeons are performing more conventional methods of turbinate reduction rather than taking advantage of the many of the more novel technology-driven methods.
被认可的下鼻甲成形术技术数量众多,这凸显了一个事实,即对于哪种方法能产生最佳效果,目前尚无普遍共识,而且也没有数据描述整形外科医生在下鼻甲手术中常用的技术。
本研究的目的是确定在鼻整形术中进行下鼻甲成形术的整形外科医生的实践模式。
邀请美国整形外科协会的成员参与一项基于互联网的匿名调查,该调查包含与下鼻甲手术中的个人偏好和结果相关的问题。
共有534名美国整形外科协会成员参与了调查。大多数人(71.7%)在独立的整形外科项目中接受培训,并具备普通外科的先决条件培训。超过一半(50.6%)的人有超过20年的手术经验;只有15.2%的人报告每年进行超过40例鼻整形手术。最常用的5种下鼻甲缩小技术是鼻甲外骨折(49.1%)、部分鼻甲切除术(33.3%)、通过电灼进行黏膜下缩小(25.3%)、黏膜下切除术(23.6%)和电灼(22.5%)。不到10%的受访者报告使用了较新的技术,如射频热消融(5.6%)、使用微型切割器(2.2%)、激光烧灼(1.1%)或冷冻手术(0.6%)。黏膜结痂和干燥是最常报告的并发症。
本次调查的结果为目前下鼻甲缩小手术的偏好提供了见解。整形外科医生更多地采用传统的鼻甲缩小方法,而不是利用许多更新的技术驱动方法。