Dinithi Liyanage, Sushanth Vayalapra, Himani Murdeshwar, Jonathan James Suresh, Hamza Usman, Elisha Bailey-Lewis, Zaira Bailón-Valdez, Ankur Khajuria
{"title":"自体肋软骨移植与辐照肋软骨移植用于鼻隆背成形术的系统回顾和meta分析。","authors":"Dinithi Liyanage, Sushanth Vayalapra, Himani Murdeshwar, Jonathan James Suresh, Hamza Usman, Elisha Bailey-Lewis, Zaira Bailón-Valdez, Ankur Khajuria","doi":"10.1093/asjof/ojae122","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Autologous costal cartilage (ACC) is commonly used for dorsal augmentation rhinoplasty because of its availability and strength, despite risks such as hypertrophic scarring and pneumothorax for the patient. Irradiated homologous costal cartilage (IHCC) offers an alternative, potentially mitigating these complications. Previous reviews comparing these materials have been methodologically weak. The aim of this study is to perform a robust systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the outcomes of ACC and IHCC in dorsal augmentation rhinoplasty to guide clinical decision making in nasal reconstruction. Medline, Embase, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed by 2 independent authors. The primary outcomes of interest were warping, revision rates, infection rates, and displacement. Methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation and Cochrane's ROBINS I tool, respectively. Thirty-six articles were reviewed, including 1 comparative and 35 single-arm studies (ACC: 29, IHCC: 8), encompassing 2526 patients from 13 countries. Adverse events included warping (ACC: 6%, <i>P</i> < .0001; IHCC: 6%, <i>P</i> < .0001). Resorption rates were 1% for ACC (<i>P</i> = .06) and 3% for IHCC (<i>P</i> < .0001). Revision surgery rates were similar (ACC: 4%, <i>P</i> < .001; IHCC: 4%, <i>P</i> < .001), as were infection rates (ACC: 1.8%, <i>P</i> = .03; IHCC: 1.3%, <i>P</i> = .03). Current evidence does not demonstrate the superiority of ACC or IHCC for dorsal augmentation rhinoplasty. Both grafts are viable, with the choice guided by patient and surgeon preferences. Prospective, high-quality data with standardized outcomes are needed to improve clinical decision making.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence 2 risk: </strong></p>","PeriodicalId":72118,"journal":{"name":"Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum","volume":"7 ","pages":"ojae122"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11786243/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Autologous vs Irradiated Homologous Costal Cartilage Grafts for Dorsal Augmentation Rhinoplasty.\",\"authors\":\"Dinithi Liyanage, Sushanth Vayalapra, Himani Murdeshwar, Jonathan James Suresh, Hamza Usman, Elisha Bailey-Lewis, Zaira Bailón-Valdez, Ankur Khajuria\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/asjof/ojae122\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Autologous costal cartilage (ACC) is commonly used for dorsal augmentation rhinoplasty because of its availability and strength, despite risks such as hypertrophic scarring and pneumothorax for the patient. Irradiated homologous costal cartilage (IHCC) offers an alternative, potentially mitigating these complications. Previous reviews comparing these materials have been methodologically weak. The aim of this study is to perform a robust systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the outcomes of ACC and IHCC in dorsal augmentation rhinoplasty to guide clinical decision making in nasal reconstruction. Medline, Embase, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed by 2 independent authors. The primary outcomes of interest were warping, revision rates, infection rates, and displacement. Methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation and Cochrane's ROBINS I tool, respectively. Thirty-six articles were reviewed, including 1 comparative and 35 single-arm studies (ACC: 29, IHCC: 8), encompassing 2526 patients from 13 countries. Adverse events included warping (ACC: 6%, <i>P</i> < .0001; IHCC: 6%, <i>P</i> < .0001). Resorption rates were 1% for ACC (<i>P</i> = .06) and 3% for IHCC (<i>P</i> < .0001). Revision surgery rates were similar (ACC: 4%, <i>P</i> < .001; IHCC: 4%, <i>P</i> < .001), as were infection rates (ACC: 1.8%, <i>P</i> = .03; IHCC: 1.3%, <i>P</i> = .03). Current evidence does not demonstrate the superiority of ACC or IHCC for dorsal augmentation rhinoplasty. Both grafts are viable, with the choice guided by patient and surgeon preferences. Prospective, high-quality data with standardized outcomes are needed to improve clinical decision making.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence 2 risk: </strong></p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72118,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum\",\"volume\":\"7 \",\"pages\":\"ojae122\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11786243/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/asjof/ojae122\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/asjof/ojae122","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
自体肋软骨(ACC)通常用于背侧隆鼻术,因为它的可用性和强度,尽管有肥厚性疤痕和气胸等风险。放射同源肋软骨(IHCC)提供了另一种选择,可能减轻这些并发症。以前比较这些材料的综述在方法上是薄弱的。本研究的目的是进行一项强有力的系统回顾和荟萃分析,比较ACC和IHCC在鼻背隆鼻术中的结果,以指导鼻重建的临床决策。检索了Medline、Embase、谷歌Scholar和Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials数据库。数据提取和质量评估由2名独立作者完成。研究的主要结局是翘曲、修正率、感染率和移位。方法质量和偏倚风险分别使用推荐评分评估、发展和评估和Cochrane的ROBINS I工具进行评估。我们回顾了36篇文章,包括1篇比较研究和35篇单臂研究(ACC: 29, IHCC: 8),涵盖了来自13个国家的2526名患者。不良事件包括翘曲(ACC: 6%, P < 0.0001;肝癌:6%,p < 0.0001)。ACC的吸收率为1% (P = 0.06), IHCC的吸收率为3% (P < 0.0001)。翻修手术率相似(ACC: 4%, P < 0.001;IHCC: 4%, P < .001),感染率(ACC: 1.8%, P = .03;肝癌:1.3%,p = .03)。目前的证据并不能证明ACC或IHCC在隆鼻术中的优越性。两种移植物都是可行的,根据患者和外科医生的喜好进行选择。需要具有标准化结果的前瞻性、高质量数据来改善临床决策。证据2级风险:
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Autologous vs Irradiated Homologous Costal Cartilage Grafts for Dorsal Augmentation Rhinoplasty.
Autologous costal cartilage (ACC) is commonly used for dorsal augmentation rhinoplasty because of its availability and strength, despite risks such as hypertrophic scarring and pneumothorax for the patient. Irradiated homologous costal cartilage (IHCC) offers an alternative, potentially mitigating these complications. Previous reviews comparing these materials have been methodologically weak. The aim of this study is to perform a robust systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the outcomes of ACC and IHCC in dorsal augmentation rhinoplasty to guide clinical decision making in nasal reconstruction. Medline, Embase, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed by 2 independent authors. The primary outcomes of interest were warping, revision rates, infection rates, and displacement. Methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation and Cochrane's ROBINS I tool, respectively. Thirty-six articles were reviewed, including 1 comparative and 35 single-arm studies (ACC: 29, IHCC: 8), encompassing 2526 patients from 13 countries. Adverse events included warping (ACC: 6%, P < .0001; IHCC: 6%, P < .0001). Resorption rates were 1% for ACC (P = .06) and 3% for IHCC (P < .0001). Revision surgery rates were similar (ACC: 4%, P < .001; IHCC: 4%, P < .001), as were infection rates (ACC: 1.8%, P = .03; IHCC: 1.3%, P = .03). Current evidence does not demonstrate the superiority of ACC or IHCC for dorsal augmentation rhinoplasty. Both grafts are viable, with the choice guided by patient and surgeon preferences. Prospective, high-quality data with standardized outcomes are needed to improve clinical decision making.