Mohamed A Abdelwahab1,2, Caio A Neves1,3, Priyesh N Patel1, Sam P Most4. 1. Division of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, 801 Welch Road, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA. 2. Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Mansoura University, Faculty of Medicine, Mansoura, Egypt. 3. Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, University of Brasília, Faculty of Medicine, Brasília, Brazil. 4. Division of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, 801 Welch Road, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA. smost@stanford.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study evaluates the impact of different hump takedown techniques, namely the conventional hump resection with midvault reconstruction, the push-down (PD) and the let-down (LD) procedures, on the INV dimensions. METHODS: In this cadaveric study, six heads were divided randomly into either the conventional hump resection technique (Group A; n = 6 sides) or DPR techniques (n = 6 sides). This latter group was subdivided such that initially a PD procedure was performed (Group B; n = 6 sides), followed by a LD procedure on the same heads (Group C; n = 6 sides). A validated radiological method was used to measure the INV angle and cross-sectional area (CSA) in a modified coronal plane both pre- and post-procedurally. RESULTS: Group A did not show significant reduction in the INV angle nor in CSA (p = 0.068 and p = 0.156, respectively). In the push-down group (B), we observed a mean change of 2.05° in the angles and 0.3 cm2 in the CSA (p = 0.0163 and p < 0.001, respectively). The LD group (C) did not show significant reduction in the INV angle nor in CSA (p = 0.437 and p = 0.331, respectively). CONCLUSION: Neither the conventional hump resection nor the LD DPR technique reduced the INV dimensions. However, the PD preservation technique significantly reduced the INV dimensions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.
BACKGROUND: This study evaluates the impact of different hump takedown techniques, namely the conventional hump resection with midvault reconstruction, the push-down (PD) and the let-down (LD) procedures, on the INV dimensions. METHODS: In this cadaveric study, six heads were divided randomly into either the conventional hump resection technique (Group A; n = 6 sides) or DPR techniques (n = 6 sides). This latter group was subdivided such that initially a PD procedure was performed (Group B; n = 6 sides), followed by a LD procedure on the same heads (Group C; n = 6 sides). A validated radiological method was used to measure the INV angle and cross-sectional area (CSA) in a modified coronal plane both pre- and post-procedurally. RESULTS: Group A did not show significant reduction in the INV angle nor in CSA (p = 0.068 and p = 0.156, respectively). In the push-down group (B), we observed a mean change of 2.05° in the angles and 0.3 cm2 in the CSA (p = 0.0163 and p < 0.001, respectively). The LD group (C) did not show significant reduction in the INV angle nor in CSA (p = 0.437 and p = 0.331, respectively). CONCLUSION: Neither the conventional hump resection nor the LD DPR technique reduced the INV dimensions. However, the PD preservation technique significantly reduced the INV dimensions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.
Authors: Rod J Rohrich; George Broughton; Bauer Horton; Avron Lipschitz; Jeffrey M Kenkel; Spencer A Brown Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Margaret A Sinkler; Chase J Wehrle; Joseph W Elphingstone; Emma Magidson; Edmond F Ritter; Jimmy J Brown Journal: Aesthetic Plast Surg Date: 2021-01-05 Impact factor: 2.326