Facial Plastic Surgery, FPS and Maxillofacial, Nice, France.
Department of Rhinoplasty, FPS Center, Nice, France.
Facial Plast Surg. 2021 Feb;37(1):53-64. doi: 10.1055/s-0041-1723827. Epub 2021 Feb 25.
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.
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。