Suppr超能文献

原发性鼻整形术中的背侧保留指南。

Guidelines for Dorsum Preservation in Primary Rhinoplasty.

机构信息

Facial Plastic Surgery, FPS and Maxillofacial, Nice, France.

Department of Rhinoplasty, FPS Center, Nice, France.

出版信息

Facial Plast Surg. 2021 Feb;37(1):53-64. doi: 10.1055/s-0041-1723827. Epub 2021 Feb 25.

Abstract

The multiplication of scientific articles related to the fast-growing interest in preservation rhinoplasty (PR) may lead to confusion in the decision-making process, thus requiring a need for guidelines through a focus on benefit-risk ratio and revisions. This study analyzes a 352 consecutive primary rhinoplasties series during a 3 year (2016 to 2019) period with 1-year follow-up. The evaluation of the most appropriate procedure to the patient's nasal anatomy and expectations requires to correlate (1) a convenient classification of nasal profile lines; (2) a review of the dorsum preservation techniques (DP) classified as: full DP, DP + resurfacing, bony cartilaginous disarticulation, and finally traditional rhinoplasty; (3) the role of septoplasties, subdividing this series in two main groups; (4) analyzing the revisions in the different subgroups and to the literature. Thirty-five revisions (9.94%) were done. Correlations between profile lines, surgical procedures, and revisions show (1) 129 straight noses underwent full DP in 88 cases with 5.68% revisions; however, DP+ hump resurfacing in 32 patients with no revision. (2) Among 71 tension noses, 33 underwent full DP with 6 revisions (18.18%), while 32 patients had bony cap resurfacing, 1 revision (3.13%). (3) Among 109 kyphotic noses, 64 patients underwent DP + resurfacing with 10 revisions (15.63%); 27 patients had cartilage-only DP with two revisions (7.41%). (4) In the 43 difficult noses group, revisions were done equally in DP + resurfacing and cartilage-only subgroups. Septum stability modifies the correlations, introducing Cottle's septorhinoplasty in the paradigm. The revision rate is jumping ×2.50% when a septoplasty is associated with the rhinoplasty. Correlated to the benefit-risk ratio and the revisions, the following guidelines may be suggested in primary rhinoplasty: (1) Straight noses: full DP, (2) tension noses: DP + dorsum resurfacing and/or Cottle's variations, (3) kyphotic noses: cartilage-only DP, and (4) difficult noses: traditional rhinoplasties.

摘要

鼻整形修复术(PR)的快速发展引起了人们的广泛关注,与之相关的科学文献也日益增多,这可能导致决策过程的混淆,因此需要通过关注收益-风险比和修订来制定指南。本研究分析了 2016 年至 2019 年 3 年间(共 352 例连续的原发性鼻整形术)的 1 年随访结果。为了评估最适合患者鼻解剖结构和预期的手术,需要(1)对鼻轮廓线进行方便的分类;(2)回顾分类为:全层保留鼻中隔软骨(DP)、DP+鼻背修复、骨性软骨分离,最后是传统鼻整形术的背侧保留技术(DP);(3)鼻中隔成形术的作用,将本系列分为两个主要组;(4)分析不同亚组和文献中的修订。共进行了 35 次修正。轮廓线、手术程序和修正之间的相关性表明:(1)129 例直鼻接受了 88 例 DP 治疗,其中 5.68%进行了修正;而 32 例 DP+驼峰修复术未进行修正。(2)71 例张力性鼻中有 33 例接受了全层 DP,有 6 例(18.18%)进行了修正,而 32 例患者进行了骨性帽状软骨修复术,仅进行了 1 次修正(3.13%)。(3)109 例驼峰鼻中有 64 例接受了 DP+鼻背修复术,有 10 例(15.63%)进行了修正;27 例患者行单纯软骨 DP,有 2 例(7.41%)进行了修正。(4)在 43 例困难鼻组中,DP+鼻背修复术和单纯软骨 DP 亚组的修正率相等。鼻中隔稳定性改变了相关性,将 Cottle 鼻中隔成形术引入到这一模式中。当鼻中隔成形术与鼻整形术相关联时,修正率增加了 2.5 倍。与收益-风险比和修正相关,在原发性鼻整形术中可以提出以下建议:(1)直鼻:全层 DP;(2)张力性鼻:DP+背侧修复和/或 Cottle 变异术;(3)驼峰鼻:单纯软骨 DP;(4)困难鼻:传统鼻整形术。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验