medigraphic.com
Anales de Otorrinolaringología Mexicana

2022, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Otorrinolaringología 2022; 67 (1)

Similarity between pre-surgical photographic simulation and post-surgical results in the first year of rhinoplasty

Mondani RB, Talayero-Petra JA, García CMA, Almanza-Mackintoy N

Language: Spanish
References: 15
Page: 23-31
PDF size: 232.37 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: To determine the similarity between the pre-surgical photographic simulation with the result of rhinoplasty with endonasal technique one year after the operation.
Materials and Methods: An observational, prospective, analytical, cross-sectional study was carried out, where the photographic files of 47 patients operated of rhinoplasty with endonasal technique were analyzed.
Results: The nasolabial angle was slightly lower (103.05 ± 8.28) compared to the postsurgical measurements (103.54 ± 11.40); however, no statistically significant differences were observed between these data. Regarding the nasofrontal angle, lower measurements were reported in the postoperative group (133.36 ± 4.83) vs those that made up the simulation records (136.83 ± 3.87). When comparing the simulations with the postoperative results of the Goode projection index (Gp), a record slightly higher than that projected during the simulations was identified.
Conclusions: The endonasal technique using a delivery-type approach, with the placement of an intercrural graft and a shield-type graft, allows long-term lasting quantitative measurements to be achieved when compared to the preoperative simulator.


REFERENCES

  1. Oladokun D, Baumgart A, Baumann I, Bulut OC. Quality of life gain after septorhinoplasty: An analysis of health utility and cost utility values associated with septorhinoplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2018; 42 (6): 1618-24. doi: 10.1007/ s00266-018-1226-7.

  2. Topsakal O, Akbaş Mİ, Demirel D, Nunez R, Smith BS, Perez MF, et al. Digitizing rhinoplasty: a web application with three-dimensional preoperative evaluation to assist rhinoplasty surgeons with surgical planning. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 2020; 15 (11): 1941-50. doi: 10.1007/ s11548-020-02251-7.

  3. Rohrich RJ, Ahmad J. Rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 128 (2): 49e-73e. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e31821e7191.

  4. Bashiri-Bawil M, Rahavi-Ezabadi S, Sadeghi M, Zoroofi RA, Amali A. Preoperative computer simulation in rhinoplasty using previous postoperative images. Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med 2020; 22 (6): 406-11. doi: 10.1089/ fpsam.2019.0016.

  5. Cingi CC, Cingi C, Bayar Muluk N. Cingi Steps for preoperative computer-assisted image editing before reduction rhinoplasty: Preoperative computer-assisted image editing. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 2014; 4 (4): 329-32. doi: 10.1002/ alr.21271.

  6. Adelson R, DeFatta R, Bassischis B. Objective assessment of the accuracy of computer-simulated imaging in rhinoplasty. Am J Otolaryngol 2008; 29 (3): 151-5. doi: 10.1016/j. amjoto.2007.04.008.

  7. Mühlbauer W, Holm C. Computer imaging and surgical reality in aesthetic rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005; 115 (7): 2098-104. doi: 10.1097/01.prs.0000164676.72074.6a.

  8. Kiranantawat K, Nguyen AH. Asian rhinoplasty: Preoperative simulation and planning using Adobe Photoshop. Semin Plast Sur. 2015; 29 (4): 232-46. doi: 10.1055/s- 0035-1564816.

  9. Mehta U, Mazhar K, Frankel AS. Accuracy of preoperative computer imaging in rhinoplasty. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2010; 12 (6): 394-8. doi: 10.1001/archfacial.2010.96.

  10. Aksakal İA, Keles MK, Engin MS, Aydoğdu İO, Küçüker İ. Preoperative simulation in planning rhinoplasty: Evaluation from patients’ and surgeons’ perspectives. Facial Plast Surg 2017; 33 (3): 324-8. doi: 10.1055/s-0037-1601419.

  11. Cingi C, Songu M, Bal C. Outcomes research in rhinoplasty: body image and quality of life. Am J Rhinol Allergy 2011; 25 (4): 263-7. doi: 10.2500/ajra.2011.25.3649.

  12. Gomes-Patrocínio L, Barbosa FH, Barreto DM, Patrocinio JA. Evaluation of computer imaging in rhinoplasty: patient’s satisfaction. Int. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol 2007; 11 (2): 106-108.

  13. Hamilton GS 3rd. Morphing images to demonstrate potential surgical outcomes. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 2010; 18 (2): 267-82. doi: 10.1016/j.fsc.2010.01.006.

  14. Persing S, Timberlake A, Madari S, Steinbacher D. Threedimensional imaging in rhinoplasty: A comparison of the simulated versus actual result. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2018; 42 (5): 1331-5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-018-1151-9.

  15. Punthakee X, Rival R, Solomon P. Digital imaging in rhinoplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2009; 33 (4): 635-8. doi: 10.1007/s00266-009-9350-z.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com