Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2022
Powered Micro-saw Versus Conventional Osteotome for Septorhinoplasty: A Prospective, Double-Blind, Comparative Study.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Pamuk Gözde, Pamuk A Erim, Kandemir Süheyla
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Various powered instruments are used to perform osteotomy. A consensus on the best method has not been established due to discrepancies in previous studies. This study aimed to compare the conventional osteotome and a powered micro-saw during septorhinoplasty.
METHODS: The single-center, prospective cohort study included 60 patients that were grouped into two groups of 30 each. Group 1 underwent open septorhinoplasty using a conventional osteotome, and group 2 underwent open septorhinoplasty using a powered micro-saw. Postoperative edema, ecchymosis, pain, and nasal blockage were compared between groups. Preoperative and postoperative (6 months) functional and aesthetic outcomes were compared based on FACE-Q, SNOT-22, and T-NOSE scores.
RESULTS: There were not any differences in age, gender, follow-up duration, the Brinkman index, or level of education between groups. Postoperative pain scores were significantly lower in group 2 on d 1 and d 3 postsurgery. Nasal blockage scores were significantly higher in group 1 on d 3 and d 7 postsurgery. Edema and ecchymosis scores were similar in both groups at all time points. Preoperative and postoperative (6 months) functional and aesthetic outcomes were also similar in both groups.
CONCLUSION: Osteotomy using a powered micro-saw is an effective technique that results in less postoperative pain and nasal blockage than when using conventional osteotome. Early postoperative period edema and ecchymosis scores and long-term functional and aesthetic outcomes are similar when using a powered micro-saw and a conventional osteotome. Osteotomy using a powered micro-saw can be considered an alternative to using a conventional osteotome.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE II: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
METHODS: The single-center, prospective cohort study included 60 patients that were grouped into two groups of 30 each. Group 1 underwent open septorhinoplasty using a conventional osteotome, and group 2 underwent open septorhinoplasty using a powered micro-saw. Postoperative edema, ecchymosis, pain, and nasal blockage were compared between groups. Preoperative and postoperative (6 months) functional and aesthetic outcomes were compared based on FACE-Q, SNOT-22, and T-NOSE scores.
RESULTS: There were not any differences in age, gender, follow-up duration, the Brinkman index, or level of education between groups. Postoperative pain scores were significantly lower in group 2 on d 1 and d 3 postsurgery. Nasal blockage scores were significantly higher in group 1 on d 3 and d 7 postsurgery. Edema and ecchymosis scores were similar in both groups at all time points. Preoperative and postoperative (6 months) functional and aesthetic outcomes were also similar in both groups.
CONCLUSION: Osteotomy using a powered micro-saw is an effective technique that results in less postoperative pain and nasal blockage than when using conventional osteotome. Early postoperative period edema and ecchymosis scores and long-term functional and aesthetic outcomes are similar when using a powered micro-saw and a conventional osteotome. Osteotomy using a powered micro-saw can be considered an alternative to using a conventional osteotome.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE II: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .