City Hospital, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Mersin.
Istinye University, Faculty of Medicine, Bahçelievler MedicalPark Hospital, Otorhinolaryngology Istanbul, Turkey.
J Craniofac Surg. 2021 May 1;32(3):1075-1078. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000007355.
Open rhinoplasty involving columellar incision has gained popularity since the 1930s. Many surgical incision techniques have been employed to obtain better results in terms of postoperative scarring. This study evaluated and compared the results of absorbable and non-absorbable sutures used in open technique rhinoplasty, assessed scar properties regardless of the techniques used, from the perspectives of patients and surgeons.
This study evaluated and compared the results of absorbable and nonabsorbable sutures used in open technique rhinoplasty from the perspectives of patients and surgeons.
Study population included 70 patients who underwent primary open rhinoplasty between 2013 and 2018. Rhinoplasty Operations were performed in 2 different centers by a total of 2 rhinoplasty surgeons. Both surgeons used suture materials, which can be used for columellar closure, regardless of patients' skin characteristics. Columellar scars were assessed at an outpatient clinic at least 6 months postoperatively. Patients who could not come to the clinic were excluded from the study. Columellar Scars were assessed using the Turkish Patient Observer Scar Assessment Questionnaire. Patients were also asked to complete a Scar Assessment Analysis Questionnaire at the outpatient clinic, and were photographed from the front, basal, and right and left oblique sides. Three surgeons, who were not part of the research team but routinely performed rhinoplasty, completed the Observer Scar Assessment Questionnaire by examining patients in person at the clinic as well as their photographs.
Observer Scar Assessment Questionnaire results; for the Vicryl group, surgeons ranked pigmentation of the scar as the best criterion (3.34 ± 0.97) and irregularity of the scar as the worst (3.82 ± 1.01). For the Prolene group, surgeons ranked irregularity as the best criterion (3.30 ± 0.97) and stiffness as the worst (3.54 ± 0.94). Although there was no statistically significant result between the two groups in the criteria, the mean scores of the Prolene group were less than the Vicryl group. (3.36 ± 0.46, 3.50 ± 0.65 respectively).Scar Assessment Analysis Questionnaire Results; patients in both the Vicryl and Prolene groups ranked pain as the least important factor (mean 2.9 ± 1.11 and 3.33 ± 1.35, respectively). The Prolene group scored lower than the Vcryl group in terms of overall scarring (3.49 ± 0.72, 3.66 ± 1.37, respectively, P > 0,05).
Absorbable sutures are a convenient alternative to nonabsorbable sutures.
Evidence obtained from multiple time series with or without the intervention, such as case studies. Dramatic results in uncontrolled trials might also be regarded as this type of evidence.
自 20 世纪 30 年代以来，开放式鼻整形术涉及鼻中隔切开术已越来越受欢迎。为了获得更好的术后疤痕效果，已经采用了许多外科切口技术。本研究从患者和外科医生的角度评估和比较开放式技术鼻整形术中使用的可吸收和不可吸收缝线的结果，无论使用哪种技术，均评估鼻中隔疤痕的特性。
本研究从患者和外科医生的角度评估和比较开放式技术鼻整形术中使用的可吸收和不可吸收缝线的结果。
研究人群包括 2013 年至 2018 年间接受初次开放式鼻整形术的 70 例患者。鼻整形术由总共 2 位鼻整形外科医生在 2 个不同中心进行。两位外科医生均使用缝线材料，无论患者的皮肤特征如何，都可以用于鼻中隔闭合。至少在术后 6 个月在门诊诊所评估鼻中隔疤痕。由于无法来诊所，因此将未参加研究的患者排除在外。使用土耳其患者观察者疤痕评估问卷评估鼻中隔疤痕。患者还在门诊诊所填写了疤痕评估分析问卷，并从前、基底和右侧及左侧斜位拍摄照片。三位并非研究团队成员但常规进行鼻整形术的外科医生通过在诊所亲自检查患者以及检查其照片，完成了观察者疤痕评估问卷。
观察者疤痕评估问卷结果：对于 Vicryl 组，外科医生将疤痕的色素沉着评为最佳标准（3.34±0.97），将疤痕的不规则评为最差标准（3.82±1.01）。对于 Prolene 组，外科医生将不规则评为最佳标准（3.30±0.97），将僵硬评为最差标准（3.54±0.94）。尽管两组之间在各个标准中均未得出统计学上的显著结果，但 Prolene 组的平均得分均低于 Vicryl 组。（分别为 3.36±0.46、3.50±0.65）。疤痕评估分析问卷结果：Vicryl 和 Prolene 组的患者均将疼痛评为最不重要的因素（分别为平均 2.9±1.11 和 3.33±1.35）。与 Vicryl 组相比，Prolene 组在整体疤痕方面的评分较低（分别为 3.49±0.72、3.66±1.37，P>0.05）。
可吸收缝线是不可吸收缝线的便捷替代品。
等级 IV：证据来源于多个具有或不具有干预措施的时间序列，例如病例研究。对照试验中戏剧性的结果也可能被视为这种类型的证据。
