Taylor MCE

Language: Spanish
References: 11
Page: 118-123
PDF size: 240.79 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Background
There are no studies to date which help to classify in orderly way the postoperative complications of rhinoseptal surgery.
Objective
We propose a chronological and anatomical classification of postoperative complications of rhino-septal surgery.
Material and methods
An observational, descriptive and, retrospective study was done. We collected data of 232 subjects, who had rhino-septal surgery between January 2003 to September 2006. The early (24 h), mid-term (24 h to 6 days) and late (over 6 days) postoperative complications. The ANOVA was used to compare the average number of complications, according to the surgical techniques used.
Results
155 (66,8%) files of men and 77 (33,18%) of women were obtained. The age range was 8 to 66 years (mean 39,2 years). There were 131 (56,4%) septoplasties, 94 (40,51%) rhinoseptoplasties and 7 (3,01%) rhinoplasties. 343 complications (29 types) in 130 (56%) patients were registered.
Discussion
Postoperative complications in rhino-septal surgery can be classified by their chronological order of appearance and the anatomical site of origin.
Conclusion
Identifying complications in an organized way would contribute to an easy and detailed registration of complications in the clinical file in order to do a better pre-surgery patient selection, and subsequently, better postsurgical results in future rhino-septo-plasties. This is possible if an adequate and anticipated knowledge of the type and site of the complications, and the time in which we hope we will be able to find them.

REFERENCES

1. Boccieri A. Macro C, Pascali M. The use of spreader Grafos in primary rhinoplasty. Ann Plast Surg 2005;55(2):127-37.

2. Brenner KA, McConnell MP, Evans GR, Calvert JW. Survival of diced cartilage grafts: an experimental study. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006;117(1):105-15.

3. Constantinian MB. The boxy nasal tip, the ball tip, and alar cartilage malposition: variations on a theme-a study in 200 consecutive primary and secondary rhinoplasty patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005;116(1):268-81.

4. Egan KK, Kim DW. A novel intranasal stent for functional rhinoplasty and nostril stenosis. Laryngoscope 2005;115(5):903-9.

5. Gunter JP, Cochran CS. Management of intraoperative fractures of the nasal septal “L strut”: percutaneous Krischner wire fixation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006;117(2):395-402.

6. Guyuron B. Essentials of septorhinoplasty: philosophy- approaches-techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005;116(3):920-1.

7. Rohrich RJ, Griffin JR. Correction of intrinsic nasal tip asymmetries in primary rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 2003;112(6):1713-5.

8. Han SK, Shin SH, Kang HJ, Kim WK. Augmentation rhinoplasty using injectable tissue engineered soft tissue: A pilot study. Ann Plast Surg 2006;56:251-5.

9. Mendelsohn M. Straightening the crooked middle third of the nose: using porous polyethylene extended spreader grafts. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2005;7(2):74-80.

10. Palma P, Bignami M, Delu G, de Bernardi F, et al. Rhinoplasty for the Mediterranean nose. Facial Plast Surg 2003;19(3):279-94.

11. Yucel OT. Which type of osteotomy for edema and ecchymosis: external or internal? Ann Plast Surg 2005;55:587-90.