From the Dallas Plastic Surgery Institute.
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2023 Aug 1;152(2):332-339. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000010147. Epub 2023 Jul 27.
Columellar strut grafts and septal extension grafts are commonly used support structures; however, their relative effectiveness remains debated. The purpose of this study was to compare the long-term stability of septal extension grafts to that of columellar strut grafts.
A retrospective review of all primary rhinoplasties performed by the senior author (R.J.R.) from 2016 to 2019 was performed. All adult patients undergoing primary open rhinoplasty with at least 1 year of follow-up were included. Revision cases and those in whom rib grafts were used were excluded. Standardized postoperative imaging was assessed at 2 months (early) and at 12 months (long-term) to measure projection/rotation change over time. Univariate and multivariable statistical comparisons were performed.
The chart query yielded 133 patients. Of these, 40 patients were treated with a columellar strut and 37 patients were treated with a septal extension graft. Projection loss at 1 year was 4.7% for the columellar strut group compared with 0.2% for the septal extension graft group ( P < 0.0001). On multivariable logistic regression, there was a 5.1-fold increased risk of greater than 4% projection loss when using a columellar strut ( P < 0.005). Mean rotation loss for the columellar strut group was 4.9 degrees compared with 1.3 degrees for the septal extension graft group ( P < 0.0001). The independent effect of columellar strut use resulted in a 2.8-fold increased risk of rotation loss greater than or equal to 5 degrees ( P < 0.05).
Septal extension grafts result in effectively no loss of projection and minimal loss in rotation. A small degree of projection and rotation loss can be expected with the use of a columellar strut alone. These long-term graft tendencies should be anticipated and accounted for appropriately.
CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.
鼻中隔延伸移植物和鼻中隔支撑移植物是常用的支撑结构,但它们的相对有效性仍存在争议。本研究的目的是比较鼻中隔延伸移植物和鼻中隔支撑移植物的长期稳定性。
对 2016 年至 2019 年期间由资深作者(RJR)进行的所有初次鼻整形术进行回顾性研究。纳入所有接受初次开放式鼻整形术且随访时间至少 1 年的成年患者。排除修复病例和使用肋软骨的病例。在术后 2 个月(早期)和 12 个月(晚期)进行标准化的术后影像学评估,以测量随时间推移的突出/旋转变化。进行了单变量和多变量统计比较。
通过图表查询得到 133 例患者。其中,40 例患者接受鼻中隔支撑移植物治疗,37 例患者接受鼻中隔延伸移植物治疗。鼻中隔支撑移植物组 1 年后的突出丢失率为 4.7%,而鼻中隔延伸移植物组为 0.2%(P<0.0001)。在多变量逻辑回归中,使用鼻中隔支撑移植物时,突出丢失大于 4%的风险增加 5.1 倍(P<0.005)。鼻中隔支撑移植物组的平均旋转丢失为 4.9 度,而鼻中隔延伸移植物组为 1.3 度(P<0.0001)。鼻中隔支撑移植物的独立作用导致旋转丢失大于或等于 5 度的风险增加 2.8 倍(P<0.05)。
鼻中隔延伸移植物可有效避免突出丢失和最小程度的旋转丢失。单独使用鼻中隔支撑移植物可预期会有轻微的突出和旋转丢失。这些长期移植物的趋势应得到预期并适当考虑。
临床问题/证据水平:治疗性,III 级。