JAMA facial plastic surgery · 2013
Alar retraction: etiology, treatment, and prevention.
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.
Alexander Ashlin J, Shah Anil R, Constantinides Minas S
Аннотация
IMPORTANCE: The effect of different rhinoplasty maneuvers on alar retraction remains to be elucidated.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the etiology and treatment of alar retraction based on a series of specific rhinoplasty maneuvers.
DESIGN: Retrospective review of a single surgeon's rhinoplasty digital photo database, examining preoperative alar retraction from January 1, 2002, to December 31, 2005, in 520 patients. Patients with more than 1 mm of alar retraction on preoperative photographs were identified. Postoperative photographs were examined to determine the effect of specific rhinoplasty maneuvers on the position of the alar margin; these maneuvers included cephalic trim, cephalic positioning of the lower lateral cartilage, composite grafts, alar rim grafts, alar batten grafts, and overlay of the lower lateral cartilage.
SETTING: Tertiary care academic health center.
PARTICIPANTS: Forty-five patients with alar retraction met inclusion criteria, resulting in 63 nasal halves with alar retraction.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Intraoperative findings, postoperative results.
RESULTS: Forty-seven percent of the patients (n = 21) had prior surgery; 47% also had cephalically positioned lower lateral cartilages. Among patients with less than 4 mm of cartilage width at the outset, 46% of those who received supportive grafts achieved target correction vs only 7% for patients who did not undergo supportive cartilage grafting. In patients who underwent more than 4 mm of cephalic trim, those who received supportive grafts achieved 46% of target correction vs 11% among those who did not. Ninety-five percent of composite grafts, 69% of alar strut grafts, 47% of alar rim grafts, 43% of vertical lobule division, and 12% of alar batten grafts achieved their target correction values.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Alar retraction is a highly complex problem. It can be seen de novo and is associated with cephalically positioned lower lateral cartilages. Structurally supportive grafting-including composite grafts, alar strut grafts, alar rim grafts, vertical lobule division, and alar batten grafts-can improve alar retraction.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the etiology and treatment of alar retraction based on a series of specific rhinoplasty maneuvers.
DESIGN: Retrospective review of a single surgeon's rhinoplasty digital photo database, examining preoperative alar retraction from January 1, 2002, to December 31, 2005, in 520 patients. Patients with more than 1 mm of alar retraction on preoperative photographs were identified. Postoperative photographs were examined to determine the effect of specific rhinoplasty maneuvers on the position of the alar margin; these maneuvers included cephalic trim, cephalic positioning of the lower lateral cartilage, composite grafts, alar rim grafts, alar batten grafts, and overlay of the lower lateral cartilage.
SETTING: Tertiary care academic health center.
PARTICIPANTS: Forty-five patients with alar retraction met inclusion criteria, resulting in 63 nasal halves with alar retraction.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Intraoperative findings, postoperative results.
RESULTS: Forty-seven percent of the patients (n = 21) had prior surgery; 47% also had cephalically positioned lower lateral cartilages. Among patients with less than 4 mm of cartilage width at the outset, 46% of those who received supportive grafts achieved target correction vs only 7% for patients who did not undergo supportive cartilage grafting. In patients who underwent more than 4 mm of cephalic trim, those who received supportive grafts achieved 46% of target correction vs 11% among those who did not. Ninety-five percent of composite grafts, 69% of alar strut grafts, 47% of alar rim grafts, 43% of vertical lobule division, and 12% of alar batten grafts achieved their target correction values.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Alar retraction is a highly complex problem. It can be seen de novo and is associated with cephalically positioned lower lateral cartilages. Structurally supportive grafting-including composite grafts, alar strut grafts, alar rim grafts, vertical lobule division, and alar batten grafts-can improve alar retraction.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Academic Medical CentersAdultAgedAlgorithmsCohort StudiesDatabases, FactualEstheticsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGraft RejectionGraft SurvivalHumansIncidenceMaleMiddle AgedNasal CartilagesNasal SeptumNose Deformities, AcquiredPostoperative ComplicationsReoperationRetrospective StudiesRhinoplastyRisk AssessmentTreatment Outcome