Aesthetic surgery journal · 2020
Application of Trans-Areola Approach for Costal Cartilage Harvest in Asian Rhinoplasty and Comparison with Traditional Approach on Donor-Site Morbidity.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Zhao Runlei, Pan Bailin, Lin Hengju, Long Yan, An Yang, Ke Qingfang
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The traditional approach of harvesting costal cartilage through a chest wall incision can result in significant donor-site morbidity and usually causes notable scars in Asian patients. This has become the main concern for Asian females seeking rhinoplasty with autologous costal cartilage.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the donor-site morbidity of the trans-areola approach for costal cartilage harvest in Asian rhinoplasty and to compare it with the traditional approach.
METHODS: Patients' records were reviewed to determine whether their rhinoplasties had been performed with either the trans-areola or the traditional approach to costal cartilage harvest. Donor-site morbidity was evaluated 1 year postoperatively via a visual analog scale and the Modified Vancouver Scar Scale. Long-term complications of the trans-areola group were assessed at least 6 months after surgery.
RESULTS: There were 26 females in the trans-areola group and 35 females in the traditional group; both groups were of similar age and body mass index range. Compared with the traditional group, the trans-areola group had a significantly longer surgery time and a higher pneumothorax rate (7.7% vs 2.9%) but a significantly better scar quality and a higher overall satisfaction. Long-term outcomes and complications of the trans-areola group included significant scars (2/26, 7.7%), concavity of the breast (1/26, 3.8%), and local chest pain/discomfort (1/26, 3.8%).
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the traditional approach to harvesting costal cartilage in Asian rhinoplasty, patients who underwent the trans-areola approach had less overall donor-site morbidity and higher overall satisfaction. We recommend this technique to patients who meet the inclusion criteria as well as those seeking a better cosmetic outcome.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the donor-site morbidity of the trans-areola approach for costal cartilage harvest in Asian rhinoplasty and to compare it with the traditional approach.
METHODS: Patients' records were reviewed to determine whether their rhinoplasties had been performed with either the trans-areola or the traditional approach to costal cartilage harvest. Donor-site morbidity was evaluated 1 year postoperatively via a visual analog scale and the Modified Vancouver Scar Scale. Long-term complications of the trans-areola group were assessed at least 6 months after surgery.
RESULTS: There were 26 females in the trans-areola group and 35 females in the traditional group; both groups were of similar age and body mass index range. Compared with the traditional group, the trans-areola group had a significantly longer surgery time and a higher pneumothorax rate (7.7% vs 2.9%) but a significantly better scar quality and a higher overall satisfaction. Long-term outcomes and complications of the trans-areola group included significant scars (2/26, 7.7%), concavity of the breast (1/26, 3.8%), and local chest pain/discomfort (1/26, 3.8%).
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the traditional approach to harvesting costal cartilage in Asian rhinoplasty, patients who underwent the trans-areola approach had less overall donor-site morbidity and higher overall satisfaction. We recommend this technique to patients who meet the inclusion criteria as well as those seeking a better cosmetic outcome.