JAMA facial plastic surgery · 2016
Aesthetic Outcomes of Alar Base Resection in Asian Patients Undergoing Rhinoplasty.
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.
Kim Ji Heui, Park Joon Pyo, Jang Yong Ju
Аннотация
IMPORTANCE: Combined sill and alar excision is a useful procedure for correcting a wide nasal base and flared alar lobules. However, the aesthetic outcomes of this technique remain poorly reported.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the aesthetic outcomes of combined sill and alar excision in Asian patients undergoing rhinoplasty.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective cohort study of 73 consecutive patients who underwent combined sill and alar excision from March 1, 2004, to January 31, 2013, was conducted at a tertiary referral hospital in Korea.
EXPOSURE: Combined sill and alar excision.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Changes in the ratio of the interalar distance to intercanthal distance and frequencies of alar flaring, nostril symmetry, and nostril shape, as measured by reviewing photographs taken before and after the surgery.
RESULTS: Among the 73 patients (50 men and 23 women; mean [SD] age, 36.5 [12.3] years) the mean (SD) ratio of interalar distance to intercanthal distance changed significantly from 1.07 (0.11) to 1.04 (0.08) (P < .001). Of the 60 patients with alar flaring, 45 (75%) no longer had flaring after the procedure. The frequency of nostril symmetry increased from 38 patients (52%) to 46 (63%) (P < .001). The frequency of horizontally shaped nostrils decreased from 21 patients (29%) to 2 (3%), while the frequency of the preferred pear-shaped nostrils increased from 20 patients (27%) to 35 (48%) (odds ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.63-2.14; P = .02). There were 4 cases of complications, namely, alar deformity (1 patient [1%]), unsatisfactory correction of asymmetrical nostrils (1 [1%]), and unsatisfactory correction of alar flaring (2 [3%]).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Combined sill and alar excision was a useful technique with a low complication rate for correcting wide alar base, alar flaring, nostril asymmetry, and nostril shape.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the aesthetic outcomes of combined sill and alar excision in Asian patients undergoing rhinoplasty.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective cohort study of 73 consecutive patients who underwent combined sill and alar excision from March 1, 2004, to January 31, 2013, was conducted at a tertiary referral hospital in Korea.
EXPOSURE: Combined sill and alar excision.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Changes in the ratio of the interalar distance to intercanthal distance and frequencies of alar flaring, nostril symmetry, and nostril shape, as measured by reviewing photographs taken before and after the surgery.
RESULTS: Among the 73 patients (50 men and 23 women; mean [SD] age, 36.5 [12.3] years) the mean (SD) ratio of interalar distance to intercanthal distance changed significantly from 1.07 (0.11) to 1.04 (0.08) (P < .001). Of the 60 patients with alar flaring, 45 (75%) no longer had flaring after the procedure. The frequency of nostril symmetry increased from 38 patients (52%) to 46 (63%) (P < .001). The frequency of horizontally shaped nostrils decreased from 21 patients (29%) to 2 (3%), while the frequency of the preferred pear-shaped nostrils increased from 20 patients (27%) to 35 (48%) (odds ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.63-2.14; P = .02). There were 4 cases of complications, namely, alar deformity (1 patient [1%]), unsatisfactory correction of asymmetrical nostrils (1 [1%]), and unsatisfactory correction of alar flaring (2 [3%]).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Combined sill and alar excision was a useful technique with a low complication rate for correcting wide alar base, alar flaring, nostril asymmetry, and nostril shape.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.