Plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2025
Evaluating the Safety of Rhinoplasty in Smokers.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tugertimur Buğra, Datta Shaishav, Goote Paige, Morris Matthew, Phelan Alannah, Lucas Alexia, Bernstein Jaime, Hanna Steven A, Mattos David, Reish Richard G
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Smoking's impact on tissue perfusion and wound healing is particularly relevant in rhinoplasty, where precise tissue healing is crucial for functional and aesthetic outcomes. Although the nasal region's robust vascular supply mitigates smoking's detrimental effects, concerns remain about postoperative complications. This study investigates whether smoking should be contraindicated for rhinoplasty by comparing infection and revision rates between smokers and nonsmokers.
METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted on 1884 rhinoplasty cases from 2014 to 2022. Patients were categorized as active smokers, former smokers, or nonsmokers. Only patients with at least 12 months of follow-up were included. All procedures were open rhinoplasties conducted under general anesthesia. Primary outcomes analyzed included infection and revision rates. Between-group statistical comparisons were performed.
RESULTS: A total of 1884 patients consisted of 80 active smokers, 39 former smokers, and 1765 nonsmokers. Average follow-up was 23.8 months. The overall revision rate was 3.3%, with 3.8% in smokers and 3.3% in nonsmokers; 3.8% of smokers required additional antibiotics for cellulitis compared with 1.6% of nonsmokers; all cases resolved without long-term complications. There were no significant differences between smoker and nonsmoker rhinoplasty patients in rates of revision, postoperative infection, or wound complications.
CONCLUSIONS: Active smoking does not appear to be a strict contraindication for rhinoplasty. Smoker and nonsmoker primary and revision rhinoplasty patients exhibited similar revision, postoperative infection, and wound complication rates. This suggests that, with proper perioperative optimization, rhinoplasty can be safely performed in smokers. Although smoking cessation should still be recommended, it may not be mandatory for satisfactory outcomes.
METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted on 1884 rhinoplasty cases from 2014 to 2022. Patients were categorized as active smokers, former smokers, or nonsmokers. Only patients with at least 12 months of follow-up were included. All procedures were open rhinoplasties conducted under general anesthesia. Primary outcomes analyzed included infection and revision rates. Between-group statistical comparisons were performed.
RESULTS: A total of 1884 patients consisted of 80 active smokers, 39 former smokers, and 1765 nonsmokers. Average follow-up was 23.8 months. The overall revision rate was 3.3%, with 3.8% in smokers and 3.3% in nonsmokers; 3.8% of smokers required additional antibiotics for cellulitis compared with 1.6% of nonsmokers; all cases resolved without long-term complications. There were no significant differences between smoker and nonsmoker rhinoplasty patients in rates of revision, postoperative infection, or wound complications.
CONCLUSIONS: Active smoking does not appear to be a strict contraindication for rhinoplasty. Smoker and nonsmoker primary and revision rhinoplasty patients exhibited similar revision, postoperative infection, and wound complication rates. This suggests that, with proper perioperative optimization, rhinoplasty can be safely performed in smokers. Although smoking cessation should still be recommended, it may not be mandatory for satisfactory outcomes.