Xuebing Liang1, Keming Wang1, Sunitha Malay2, Kevin C Chung3, Jiguang Ma4. 1. 17th Department of Plastic Surgery, Plastic Surgery Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China. 2. Section of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, The University of Michigan Health System; Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 3. Section of Plastic Surgery, Assistant Dean for Faculty of Affairs, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 4. 17th Department of Plastic Surgery, Plastic Surgery Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China. Electronic address: majiguangsurgeon@163.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Both autologous costal cartilage (ACC) and alloplastic materials are widely used in rhinoplasty. However, there is controversy regarding which material can offer the ideal outcome and fewer complications. OBJECTIVE: The authors review current literature to evaluate complication and satisfaction rates with different materials used in rhinoplasty. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search of articles was conducted in Embase and PubMed published through April 14, 2017. We included only articles that used ACC, silicone, Medpor, Gore-Tex, or a combination of autologous and alloplastic materials in rhinoplasty. The primary outcomes analyzed were complications and postoperative satisfaction. After data extraction, meta-analysis using the random effect model was performed to summarize outcome parameters among different implant types. RESULTS: Fifty-three articles met inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. The overall complication rate of ACC was 14%, which was higher than that of other implants. However, ACC was more commonly used in revision rhinoplasty. Medpor was associated with low overall complication rates (6%) and good aesthetic and functional outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis of available evidence suggests that ACC is preferred in revision rhinoplasty, which may explain its association with higher complication rates. In primary rhinoplasty, Medpor offered versatility in addition to low complication rates and good aesthetic and function outcomes. But its potential dramatic damage to the nasal tissue made secondary surgery extremely difficult. Our findings were limited by lack of high-quality evidence. Future studies with rigorous study design for head-to-head comparisons and longer follow-up are needed to establish clear guidelines for choosing the appropriate rhinoplasty graft material.
BACKGROUND: Both autologous costal cartilage (ACC) and alloplastic materials are widely used in rhinoplasty. However, there is controversy regarding which material can offer the ideal outcome and fewer complications. OBJECTIVE: The authors review current literature to evaluate complication and satisfaction rates with different materials used in rhinoplasty. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search of articles was conducted in Embase and PubMed published through April 14, 2017. We included only articles that used ACC, silicone, Medpor, Gore-Tex, or a combination of autologous and alloplastic materials in rhinoplasty. The primary outcomes analyzed were complications and postoperative satisfaction. After data extraction, meta-analysis using the random effect model was performed to summarize outcome parameters among different implant types. RESULTS: Fifty-three articles met inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. The overall complication rate of ACC was 14%, which was higher than that of other implants. However, ACC was more commonly used in revision rhinoplasty. Medpor was associated with low overall complication rates (6%) and good aesthetic and functional outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis of available evidence suggests that ACC is preferred in revision rhinoplasty, which may explain its association with higher complication rates. In primary rhinoplasty, Medpor offered versatility in addition to low complication rates and good aesthetic and function outcomes. But its potential dramatic damage to the nasal tissue made secondary surgery extremely difficult. Our findings were limited by lack of high-quality evidence. Future studies with rigorous study design for head-to-head comparisons and longer follow-up are needed to establish clear guidelines for choosing the appropriate rhinoplasty graft material.