Young-Ha Lee1, Yoon Seok Choi1, Chang Hoon Bae1, Si-Youn Song1, Yong-Dae Kim1,2, Hyung Gyun Na3. 1. Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck surgery, College of Medicine, Yeungnam University, 170, Hyeonchung-ro, Nam-gu, Daegu, 42415, Republic of Korea. 2. Regional Center for Respiratory Diseases, Yeungnam University Medical Center, Daegu, Republic of Korea. 3. Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck surgery, College of Medicine, Yeungnam University, 170, Hyeonchung-ro, Nam-gu, Daegu, 42415, Republic of Korea. drnhk79@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diced cartilage glue (DG) grafts have been widely used in dorsal augmentation but can induce dorsal irregularities. The authors evaluated the postoperative feasibility of a crushed septal cartilage-covered diced cartilage glue (CCDG) graft. METHODS: The medical records of 38 patients who underwent dorsal augmentation rhinoplasty with an open approach were retrospectively reviewed. DG graft was used in 18 patients (47.4%), and CCDG graft was used in 20 patients (52.6%). Surgical outcomes were assessed by comparing anthropometric data on facial photographs and satisfaction questionnaires on aesthetic outcomes and palpable irregularities on nasal dorsum before and after surgery. RESULTS: Both groups showed successful aesthetic outcomes. Dorsal height, radix height, and tip projection were all increased postoperatively in both groups. Tip rotation did not significantly increase (p > 0.05). Both groups showed similar outcomes in terms of aesthetic satisfaction but a significant difference in palpable irregularity. CCDG graft group showed significantly better (p = 0.04) satisfaction with dorsal irregularities (4.15 ± 0.75) than the DG graft group (3.56 ± 0.92). CCDG graft group also showed significantly better mean values (p = 0.048) in the degree of irregularity by two surgeons (3.85 ± 0.65) than the DG graft group (3.25 ± 0.97). No patient had significant complaints about irregular dorsum, and none of them underwent a revision rhinoplasty. CONCLUSION: CCDG graft can be a complementary option for avoiding postoperative irregular dorsum complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: 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: Diced cartilage glue (DG) grafts have been widely used in dorsal augmentation but can induce dorsal irregularities. The authors evaluated the postoperative feasibility of a crushed septal cartilage-covered diced cartilage glue (CCDG) graft. METHODS: The medical records of 38 patients who underwent dorsal augmentation rhinoplasty with an open approach were retrospectively reviewed. DG graft was used in 18 patients (47.4%), and CCDG graft was used in 20 patients (52.6%). Surgical outcomes were assessed by comparing anthropometric data on facial photographs and satisfaction questionnaires on aesthetic outcomes and palpable irregularities on nasal dorsum before and after surgery. RESULTS: Both groups showed successful aesthetic outcomes. Dorsal height, radix height, and tip projection were all increased postoperatively in both groups. Tip rotation did not significantly increase (p > 0.05). Both groups showed similar outcomes in terms of aesthetic satisfaction but a significant difference in palpable irregularity. CCDG graft group showed significantly better (p = 0.04) satisfaction with dorsal irregularities (4.15 ± 0.75) than the DG graft group (3.56 ± 0.92). CCDG graft group also showed significantly better mean values (p = 0.048) in the degree of irregularity by two surgeons (3.85 ± 0.65) than the DG graft group (3.25 ± 0.97). No patient had significant complaints about irregular dorsum, and none of them underwent a revision rhinoplasty. CONCLUSION: CCDG graft can be a complementary option for avoiding postoperative irregular dorsum complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: 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: Chad R Gordon; Mohammed Alghoul; Jonathan S Goldberg; Mutaz B Habal; Francis Papay Journal: J Craniofac Surg Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 1.046
Authors: Christian Kreutzer; Julius Hoehne; Wolfgang Gubisch; Farid Rezaeian; Sebastian Haack Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 4.730