The Journal of craniofacial surgery · 2022
Surgical Approaches and Outcomes of Short Nose Correction: A Descriptive Systematic Review of the Literature.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание 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.
Alqabbani Almaha A, Alqabbani Alhanouf, Mulafikh Dhaifallah S, Alanazi Hani M, Alhussien Ahmed, Alshehrhi Wala A, Obeid Amani A, Alarfaj Ahmed M
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to describe all published techniques of short nose correction released by surgeons over the years and summarize their outcomes in a descriptive systematic review of the literature.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: A computerized literature search was conducted using 5 major databases. All original studies discussing correction methods and/or outcomes of shortened noses were included. The risk of bias was evaluated blindly by 2 reviewers, and the data were descriptively presented. The study protocol was recorded in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews.
RESULTS: A total of 24 studies including 1450 patients were included. Lengthening of the nose was performed through a cartilage-only graft in 14 studies, whereas bone graft was used in 3 studies. The mean increase in nasal tip projection in 5 reports ranged from 0.05 to 2.2 mm. The mean nasal length before and after rhinoplasty was reported in 8 studies, with a mean increase ranging from 0.28 to 6.2 mm. Regarding surgical complications, 30 patients had implant deviation or migration, 22 patients experienced postoperative infection, and 12 patients required corrective surgery.
CONCLUSIONS: Augmentation of a short nose is a challenging surgical procedure for rhinoplasty. There are several techniques for short nose correction; however, it is difficult to evaluate the outcomes in the absence of a standard tool of assessment. Further analytical studies are warranted to fully evaluate surgical techniques.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: A computerized literature search was conducted using 5 major databases. All original studies discussing correction methods and/or outcomes of shortened noses were included. The risk of bias was evaluated blindly by 2 reviewers, and the data were descriptively presented. The study protocol was recorded in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews.
RESULTS: A total of 24 studies including 1450 patients were included. Lengthening of the nose was performed through a cartilage-only graft in 14 studies, whereas bone graft was used in 3 studies. The mean increase in nasal tip projection in 5 reports ranged from 0.05 to 2.2 mm. The mean nasal length before and after rhinoplasty was reported in 8 studies, with a mean increase ranging from 0.28 to 6.2 mm. Regarding surgical complications, 30 patients had implant deviation or migration, 22 patients experienced postoperative infection, and 12 patients required corrective surgery.
CONCLUSIONS: Augmentation of a short nose is a challenging surgical procedure for rhinoplasty. There are several techniques for short nose correction; however, it is difficult to evaluate the outcomes in the absence of a standard tool of assessment. Further analytical studies are warranted to fully evaluate surgical techniques.