Literature DB >> 17372060

Open vs closed approach to the nasal pyramid for fracture reduction.

Michael J Reilly1, Steven P Davison.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare an open vs a closed approach to the nasal pyramid for the initial repair of nasal fractures.
METHODS: Retrospective medical record review of 49 patients with acute nasal fractures treated by a single surgeon during a 5-year period. Patients underwent a closed approach to the nasal pyramid (Boise elevator only) or an open approach using rhinoplasty techniques, including rasping, osteotomies, and cartilaginous resection or augmentation. Patients were further categorized based on whether septoplasty was performed. The primary outcome measure was the revision rate (RR).
RESULTS: All 49 patients with acquired nasal deformities underwent repair within 3 weeks of the date of injury. The cohort was filtered into the following 5 groups: group 1 (closed approach to the nasal pyramid; RR, 1/15 [6.7%]), group 2 (closed approach to the nasal pyramid with septoplasty; RR, 3/4 [75.0%]), group 3 (open approach to the nasal pyramid; RR, 0/10 [0.0%]), group 4 (open approach to the nasal pyramid with septoplasty; RR, 1/15 [6.7%]), and group 5 (prior cosmetic septorhinoplasty; RR, 5/5 [100.0%]).
CONCLUSION: In patients with nasal fractures and associated septal deviation requiring septoplasty, RRs may be notably reduced by using an open approach to the nasal pyramid at the time of the initial repair.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17372060     DOI: 10.1001/archfaci.9.2.82

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Facial Plast Surg        ISSN: 1521-2491


  8 in total

1.  National Analysis of Risk Factors for Nasal Fractures and Associated Injuries in Trauma.

Authors:  Tiffany T Pham; Ellen Lester; Areg Grigorian; Rachel E Roditi; Jeffry T Nahmias
Journal:  Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr       Date:  2019-01-22

2.  A Five-Year Retrospective Cohort Study Analyzing Factors Influencing Complications after Nasal Trauma.

Authors:  Patricio Andrades; Nicolas Pereira; Diego Rodriguez; Claudio Borel; Rodrigo Hernández; Rodrigo Villalobos
Journal:  Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr       Date:  2018-04-12

3.  [Midfacial fractures. Diagnosis and treatment].

Authors:  M Bärmann; N Stasche
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 1.284

4.  Clinical evaluation of the nose: a cheap and effective tool for the nasal fracture diagnosis.

Authors:  Joaquín Pérez-Guisado; Paul Maclennan
Journal:  Eplasty       Date:  2012-01-23

Review 5.  Evidence and evidence gaps in therapies of nasal obstruction and rhinosinusitis.

Authors:  Nicole Rotter
Journal:  GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2016-12-15

6.  The Algorithm-Oriented Management of Nasal Bone Fracture according to Stranc's Classification System.

Authors:  Ki-Sung Park; Seung-Soo Kim; Wu-Seop Lee; Wan-Suk Yang
Journal:  Arch Craniofac Surg       Date:  2017-06-26

7.  Outcomes of Closed versus Open Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Rohun Gupta; Jithin John; Noopur Ranganathan; Rima Stepanian; Monik Gupta; Justin Hart; Farideddin Nossoni; Kenneth Shaheen; Adam Folbe; Kongkrit Chaiyasate
Journal:  Arch Plast Surg       Date:  2022-09-23

8.  Risk Factors for Corrective Septorhinoplasty Associated With Initial Treatment of Isolated Nasal Fracture.

Authors:  Kevin Li; Sami P Moubayed; Emily Spataro; Sam P Most
Journal:  JAMA Facial Plast Surg       Date:  2018-12-01       Impact factor: 4.611

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.