We have located links that may give you full text access.
Evaluation Studies
Journal Article
Immediate re-insertion of non-autologous materials in revision augmentation rhinoplasty.
Annals of Plastic Surgery 2015 May
OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to study whether immediate re-insertion of non-autologous augmentation material in revision augmentation rhinoplasty is a safe surgical strategy creating a successful and functional aesthetic outcome.
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review and analysis of medical records.
SETTING: Tertiary referral hospital.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 11 consecutive patients who had undergone removal of previous augmentation material and immediate re-insertion of non-autologous material in revision augmentation rhinoplasty was performed. Demographics, surgical approaches, augmentation materials, material-related complications, time interval between surgeries, surgical outcome, and follow-up period were included in the analysis to evaluate our surgical strategy.
RESULTS: A successful surgical outcome with respect to both functional and aesthetic aspects was obtained in nine of the 11 enrolled patients. In 1 patient, there was a recurrence of material-related complication, while another patient experienced unsatisfactory graft displacement. The unsuccessful cases had 2 common features in that silicone and endonasal approaches were used in the primary and revision surgeries, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Removal of previous augmentation material and immediate re-insertion of non-autologous material for dorsal augmentation in revision rhinoplasty is feasible with respect to functional and aesthetic aspects of patient outcome.
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review and analysis of medical records.
SETTING: Tertiary referral hospital.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 11 consecutive patients who had undergone removal of previous augmentation material and immediate re-insertion of non-autologous material in revision augmentation rhinoplasty was performed. Demographics, surgical approaches, augmentation materials, material-related complications, time interval between surgeries, surgical outcome, and follow-up period were included in the analysis to evaluate our surgical strategy.
RESULTS: A successful surgical outcome with respect to both functional and aesthetic aspects was obtained in nine of the 11 enrolled patients. In 1 patient, there was a recurrence of material-related complication, while another patient experienced unsatisfactory graft displacement. The unsuccessful cases had 2 common features in that silicone and endonasal approaches were used in the primary and revision surgeries, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Removal of previous augmentation material and immediate re-insertion of non-autologous material for dorsal augmentation in revision rhinoplasty is feasible with respect to functional and aesthetic aspects of patient outcome.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app