The Journal of craniofacial surgery · 2021
Analysis and Guidelines for Revisional Malarplasty; Most Common Facial Skeletal Contouring Surgery.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Choi Bong-Kyoon, Seo Jung Yeol, Seo Hyung Joon, Choi Soo Jong, Lee Jae Woo, Kim Min Wook, Nam Su Bong, Bae Yong Chan
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Revisional malarplasty is the most frequently performed and difficult to perform revision surgery among facial contouring surgeries. The incidence of postoperative complications and need for revision surgery is increasing because of indiscriminate malar reduction through a narrow surgical space. The authors analyzed cases of revisional malarplasty secondary to complications.
METHODS: The authors analyzed the time required and technique used in 172 patients who underwent revisional malarplasty in the past 3 years. The incision made for the approach and the graft material used for reconstruction were also investigated.
RESULTS: Of 172 patients, 35 (20.3%) underwent emergency revision. Furthermore, 71 (41.2%) required an intraoral incision, and 101 (58.8%) required a coronal incision. A total of 81(47.1%) patients required artificial or autogenous bone grafts.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with failed malarplasty should receive immediate intervention to prevent functional and cosmetic problems. When bone resorption occurs due to unfavorable union or nonunion, reconstruction using appropriate autologous tissue can prevent functional impairment and long-term cosmetic problems.
METHODS: The authors analyzed the time required and technique used in 172 patients who underwent revisional malarplasty in the past 3 years. The incision made for the approach and the graft material used for reconstruction were also investigated.
RESULTS: Of 172 patients, 35 (20.3%) underwent emergency revision. Furthermore, 71 (41.2%) required an intraoral incision, and 101 (58.8%) required a coronal incision. A total of 81(47.1%) patients required artificial or autogenous bone grafts.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with failed malarplasty should receive immediate intervention to prevent functional and cosmetic problems. When bone resorption occurs due to unfavorable union or nonunion, reconstruction using appropriate autologous tissue can prevent functional impairment and long-term cosmetic problems.