{"title":"42 Fingertip and Nail Bed Injuries","authors":"","doi":"10.1055/b-0041-183180","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1055/b-0041-183180","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":20168,"journal":{"name":"Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery","volume":"34 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82730807","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-09-01DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000006182
R. Tse, E. Mercan, D. Fisher, R. Hopper, C. Birgfeld, J. Gruss
BACKGROUND Cleft lip results in disruption of the nasal foundation and collapse of tip structures. Most approaches to primary rhinoplasty focus on correction of lower lateral cartilages; however, recurrent deformity is common, and secondary revision is frequently required. The authors describe an alternate approach that focuses on the foundation to "upright the nose," without any nasal tip dissection. This study assessed changes with surgery and with growth. Secondary goals were to compare methods of sidewall reconstruction and septoplasty and to identify predictors of relapse. METHODS Consecutive patients undergoing repair (n = 102) were assessed. Images were captured preoperatively, postoperatively, and at 5 years of age (when available) using three-dimensional stereophotogrammetry. Standard anthropometric and contemporary shape-based analysis (volume ratio, dorsal deviation, and alar-cheek definition) was performed to assess longitudinal changes. Images of age-matched normal control subjects were used for comparison. RESULTS Significant changes in anthropometric and morphometric measurements occurred following surgery. Postoperative form was similar to controls immediately after surgery and at 5 years. Nasal corrections were satisfactory, and only two patients have elected to undergo revision. When subjects were grouped according to cleft type, we found the same trends. When comparing different methods of nasal sidewall reconstruction or septoplasty, we found no differences. Alveolar cleft width was a significant predictor of worse preoperative and postoperative form. CONCLUSIONS Significant nasal correction can be achieved by means of reconstruction of nasal foundation, without nasal tip dissection. Preservation of tissue planes may allow for easier secondary revision, if necessary. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic, IV.
{"title":"Unilateral Cleft Lip Nasal Deformity: Foundation-Based Approach to Primary Rhinoplasty.","authors":"R. Tse, E. Mercan, D. Fisher, R. Hopper, C. Birgfeld, J. Gruss","doi":"10.1097/PRS.0000000000006182","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000006182","url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\u0000Cleft lip results in disruption of the nasal foundation and collapse of tip structures. Most approaches to primary rhinoplasty focus on correction of lower lateral cartilages; however, recurrent deformity is common, and secondary revision is frequently required. The authors describe an alternate approach that focuses on the foundation to \"upright the nose,\" without any nasal tip dissection. This study assessed changes with surgery and with growth. Secondary goals were to compare methods of sidewall reconstruction and septoplasty and to identify predictors of relapse.\u0000\u0000\u0000METHODS\u0000Consecutive patients undergoing repair (n = 102) were assessed. Images were captured preoperatively, postoperatively, and at 5 years of age (when available) using three-dimensional stereophotogrammetry. Standard anthropometric and contemporary shape-based analysis (volume ratio, dorsal deviation, and alar-cheek definition) was performed to assess longitudinal changes. Images of age-matched normal control subjects were used for comparison.\u0000\u0000\u0000RESULTS\u0000Significant changes in anthropometric and morphometric measurements occurred following surgery. Postoperative form was similar to controls immediately after surgery and at 5 years. Nasal corrections were satisfactory, and only two patients have elected to undergo revision. When subjects were grouped according to cleft type, we found the same trends. When comparing different methods of nasal sidewall reconstruction or septoplasty, we found no differences. Alveolar cleft width was a significant predictor of worse preoperative and postoperative form.\u0000\u0000\u0000CONCLUSIONS\u0000Significant nasal correction can be achieved by means of reconstruction of nasal foundation, without nasal tip dissection. Preservation of tissue planes may allow for easier secondary revision, if necessary.\u0000\u0000\u0000CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE\u0000Therapeutic, IV.","PeriodicalId":20168,"journal":{"name":"Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81633185","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：