medigraphic.com
ISSN 2539-0859 (Electronic)
ISSN 0120-8411 (Print)
Asociación Colombiana de Otorrinolaringología y Cirugía de Cabeza y cuello, Maxilofacial y Estética Facial (ACORL)

2021, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Acta de Otorrinolaringología CCC 2021; 49 (1)

Post-surgical complications of the management of the nasal dorsum with the cartilage-bridging technique

Oñate-Carrillo CS, Montero-Cortés J, Hortua-Bayona A, Rojas-Salazar A

Language: Spanish
References: 20
Page: 36-42
PDF size: 291.03 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: In Cartagena, a new dorsal graft technique called Cartilage in Bridge (CEP) has been carried out for approximately a decade, performed in rhinoplasties closed by a single otorhinolaryngologist. However, there are no studies that characterize the complications of this technique. Objective: To characterize postoperative complications of the management of the nasal dorsum with bridge cartilage in patients undergoing rhinoplasty. Methodology: Retrospective, descriptive, observational cross-sectional study, covering clinical records of patients who underwent closed rhinoplasty with the bridge cartilage technique between 2013 and 2016. Sociodemographic variables, characteristics of the procedure, and complications detected during follow-up were recorded postoperative: appearance of infection, extrusion, displacement, and reabsorption of the graft Results: 882 medical records were identified. The median age was 28 years, being 81 % female. Rhinoplasty was primary in 80.6 %, the dorsal graft material was only cartilage in 80.6 %, Gore-Tex® in 1.7 % and combination of cartilage and Gore-Tex® in 17.7 %. The median duration of the rhinoplasties was 78 minutes (ICR: 72-85), with the main additional procedure being septoplasty in 82.2 %. 18.2 % of the patients presented complications. Displacement (14.7 %) was the main complication reported, followed by reabsorption (4.0 %) and infection (0.1 %). Conclusions: The cartilage bridge technique showed graft displacement and reabsorption as main complications, with a frequency similar to that described in other studies.


REFERENCES

  1. Niamtu J. Cosmetic Facial Surgery. 2.a edición. [San Luis]:Elsevier; 2018. 808 p.

  2. Bagheri SC. Primary Cosmetic Rhinoplasty. Oral MaxillofacSurg Clin North Am. 2012;24(1):39-48. doi: 10.1016/j.coms.2011.10.001

  3. Noemi LP. Cirugía estética de nariz. Rev Actual Clínica.2014;47:2514-9.

  4. Constantian MB. Rhinoplasty: Craft and Magic. 1.a edición.Nueva York: Thieme; 2009. 2302 p.

  5. López-Cedrun JL. Cirugía reconstructiva y estética del terciomedio facial. 1.a edición. [Madrid]: Editorial ARAN; 2005. 366p.

  6. Fonseca R. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 3.a edición. SanLuis: Elsevier Saunders; 2017. 2696 p.

  7. Adamson PA, Galli SK. Rhinoplasty approaches: current stateof the art. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2005;7(1):32-7. doi: 10.1001/archfaci.7.1.32

  8. Abarca AA, Naser GA, Pardo JJ. Aplicaciones de materialesaloplásticos en rinoplastía. Rev. Otorrinolaringol. Cir.Cabeza Cuello. 2010;70(3):259-64. doi: 10.4067/S0718-48162010000300010

  9. Sajjadian A, Rubinstein R, Naghshineh N. Current status ofgrafts and implants in rhinoplasty: part I. Autologous grafts.Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125(2):40e-49e. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181c82f12

  10. Sajjadian A, Naghshineh N, Rubinstein R. Current status of graftsand implants in rhinoplasty: Part II. Homologous grafts andallogenic implants. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125(3):99e-109e.doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181cb662f

  11. Escobar Sanz-Dranguet P, Márquez Dorsch F, Villacampa AubáJM, Sanabria Brassart J, Gutiérrez Fonseca R, PastormerloBotegia G, et al. Injertos cartilaginosos en rinoplastia. ActaOtorrinolaringol Esp. 2002;53(10):736-40.

  12. Gunter JP RR. Augmentation rhinoplasty: dorsal onlay graftingusing shaped autogenous septal cartilage. Plast Reconstr Surg.1990;86(1):39-45.

  13. Álvarez-Buylla Blanco M, Sarandeses García A, Chao VieitesJ, Babarro Fernández R, Deus Abelenda C, Padín Seara A.Resultados funcionales y estéticos tras rinoplastia de aumento.Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp. 2011;62(5):347-54.

  14. Lin G, Lawson W. Complications using grafts and implantsin rhinoplasty. Oper Tech Otolaryngol - Head Neck Surg.2007;18(4):315-23. doi: 10.1016/j.otot.2007.09.004

  15. Moretti MP, Casari L. Satisfacción y motivación de lacirugía estética en mujeres y su relación con los esquemasdesadaptativos tempranos. Psicogente. 2017;20(38):222-39.doi: 10.17081/psico.20.38.2543

  16. Godfrey NV. Augmentation rhinoplasty with mortised septalcartilage. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 1993;17(1):31-5. doi: 10.1007/BF00455046

  17. Godin MS, Waldman SR, Johnson CM Jr. Nasal augmentationusing Gore-Tex. A 10-year experience. Arch Facial PlastSurg. 1999;1(2):118-21; discussion 122. doi: 10.1001/archfaci.1.2.118

  18. Lohuis PJ, Watts SJ, Vuyk HD. Augmentation of the nasaldorsum using Gore-Tex: intermediate results of a retrospectiveanalysis of experience in 66 patients. Clin Otolaryngol AlliedSci. 2001;26(3):214-7. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2273.2001.00453.x

  19. Bracaglia R, Fortunato R, Gentileschi S. Secondary rhinoplasty.Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2005;29(4):230-9. doi: 10.1007/s00266-005-0034-z

  20. Mao J, Carron M, Tomovic S, Narasimhan K, Allen S, MathogRH. Cartilage grafts in dorsal nasal augmentation of traumaticsaddle nose deformity: a long-term follow-up. Laryngoscope.2009;119(11):2111-7. doi: 10.1002/lary.20491




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com