Azzawi Saif Al, Kidd Thomas, Shoaib Taimur
La Belle Forme, Glasgow, Scotland, UK.
County Durham and Darlington Foundation Trust, Durham, England, UK.
Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2022 Sep;74(3):255-259. doi: 10.1007/s12070-020-01990-y. Epub 2020 Aug 6.
Closed rhinoplasty is currently losing favour as a method of rhinoplasty reshaping procedure. Open rhinoplasties are usually performed by surgeons because of the greater degree of visualisation of the cartilages and bones within the nose that need to be reshaped. Because of the criticisms of closed rhinoplasty the senior author performed an audit of his outcomes to determine whether closed rhinoplasty still has a role to play in the armamentarium of the plastic surgeon. We conducted this study as a retrospective review of all closed rhinoplasty operations performed by a single surgeon over a two-year period (from 1st January 2016 to 31st December 2017). The operative technique is provided. An independent panel of 3 assessors (2 board certified consultant plastic surgeons and one lay member of the public) rated outcomes of the closed technique based on photographic series. Statistical analysis was performed using Cohen's Kappa and Friedman test. Additionally, the length of follow up period, revision rates, and post-operative complications (general and aesthetic) were examined. A total of 242 cases of rhinoplasty were performed (8 open and 234 closed rhinoplasty; 225 primary and 17 revision operations). The first consultant surgeon gave a score in a range from 4.2/5 to 4.9/5 with a mode of 4.8 and a mean score of 4.7/5. The second consultant surgeon gave a range of 4.1/5 to 4.9/5 with a mode of 4.4 and mean score of 4.3/5. The lay panel member scored the cases in a range from 4.4/5 to 5/5 with a mode of 4.8 and a mean score of 4.9/5. Cohen's coefficient was 0.72 showing substantial agreement across the panel. The complication rate for the recorded data was 0.8% with two cases of soft tissue infection treated with oral antibiotics. The results of this paper advocates the benefits of the closed approach in aesthetic rhinoplasty. Surgeons should appreciate that both open and closed approaches are complimentary. The favouring of a single approach is indicated in the scenarios discussed. The remaining cases seem to produce equivocal results and the choice of procedure should be based on patient anatomy, outcome aims, and the ability of a surgeon to perform their preferred technique.
作为一种鼻整形重塑手术方法,闭合式鼻整形目前正逐渐失宠。由于在鼻整形手术中,开放式鼻整形能使外科医生更清楚地看到需要重塑的鼻内软骨和骨骼,所以通常由外科医生进行开放式鼻整形。鉴于对闭合式鼻整形的批评,资深作者对其手术结果进行了审核,以确定闭合式鼻整形在整形外科医生的手术方法中是否仍有一席之地。我们对一位外科医生在两年期间(从2016年1月1日至2017年12月31日)所做的所有闭合式鼻整形手术进行了回顾性研究。文中介绍了手术技术。由3名评估人员(2名获得委员会认证的整形外科顾问医生和1名普通公众成员)组成的独立小组根据照片系列对闭合式手术的结果进行评分。使用科恩卡方检验和弗里德曼检验进行统计分析。此外,还对随访期的长短、修复率以及术后并发症(一般并发症和美学并发症)进行了检查。总共进行了242例鼻整形手术(8例开放式鼻整形和234例闭合式鼻整形;225例初次手术和17例修复手术)。第一位顾问外科医生给出的评分范围为4.2/5至4.9/5,众数为4.8,平均评分为4.7/5。第二位顾问外科医生给出的评分范围为4.1/5至4.9/5,众数为4.4,平均评分为4.3/5。普通公众小组成员对这些病例的评分范围为4.4/5至5/5,众数为4.8,平均评分为4.9/5。科恩系数为0.72,表明整个小组之间有实质性的一致性。记录数据中的并发症发生率为0.8%,有两例软组织感染,经口服抗生素治疗。本文的结果支持闭合式鼻整形在美容性鼻整形中的优势。外科医生应认识到开放式和闭合式鼻整形方法相辅相成。在讨论的各种情况下,倾向于单一方法是有道理的。其余病例似乎会产生不明确的结果,手术方式的选择应基于患者的解剖结构、预期效果以及外科医生实施其首选技术的能力。