Hamid Reza Fallahi1, Seied Omid Keyhan2, Ramtin Dastgir3, Morteza Jahanbani4, Shaqayeq Ramezanzade3, Parisa Yousefi5. 1. DDS, OMFS, Maxillofacial Surgery & Implantology & Biomaterial Research Foundation (maxillogram.com), Ahvaz, Iran. 2. DDS, OMFS, Co-investigator, University of Florida, College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA. 3. DDS, Maxillofacial Surgery & Implantology & Biomaterial Research Foundation (maxillogram.com), Tehran, Iran. 4. DDS, Maxillofacial Surgery & Implantology & Biomaterial Research Foundation (maxillogram.com), Tehran, Iran. mortezajahanbani@gmail.com. 5. DDS, Prosthodontics resident, Maxillofacial Surgery & Implantology & Biomaterial Research Foundation (maxillogram.com), Isfahan, Iran.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Spreader grafts and spreader flaps are one of the most common techniques utilized in rhinoplasty surgeries. The aim of this study was to determine the complications, satisfaction, and revision rates associated with spreader grafts and spreader flaps and to compare these two modalities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PRISMA guidelines were followed for conducting this systematic review. The authors searched the literature systematically for pertinent materials in PubMed/Medline and Google Scholar. Inclusion criteria of this search included: randomized and non-randomized clinical trials, cohorts, and case series with more than 5 participants on rhinoplasty using spreader grafts or spreader flaps with detailed report either on complications, revision, and satisfaction rates. Furthermore, exclusion criteria included: any cadaveric or non-human study, case reports, technical notes, and review articles. RESULTS: The initial literature search yielded a total of 193 studies. Following screening each paper and implementing the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 40 articles were chosen. In the spreader graft group, from 21 studies reporting complications, 6 of them reported no complication. The most common complications were nasal obstruction, inverted V deformity and open roof deformity, deviation, and infection. In the spreader flap group, from 6 studies reporting any existing complications, 1 reported no complications. Five other studies reported some degree of complications. In terms of revision rate, 10 patients (0.62%) underwent revision surgery after spreader graft placement, while only 2 patients (0.35%) revised surgically in the spreader flap group. CONCLUSION: These two methods seem to have no significant difference in terms of complication rates, and both are recommended as a choice in middle vault reconstruction when each of their clinical use is indicated. 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 AND PURPOSE: Spreader grafts and spreader flaps are one of the most common techniques utilized in rhinoplasty surgeries. The aim of this study was to determine the complications, satisfaction, and revision rates associated with spreader grafts and spreader flaps and to compare these two modalities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PRISMA guidelines were followed for conducting this systematic review. The authors searched the literature systematically for pertinent materials in PubMed/Medline and Google Scholar. Inclusion criteria of this search included: randomized and non-randomized clinical trials, cohorts, and case series with more than 5 participants on rhinoplasty using spreader grafts or spreader flaps with detailed report either on complications, revision, and satisfaction rates. Furthermore, exclusion criteria included: any cadaveric or non-human study, case reports, technical notes, and review articles. RESULTS: The initial literature search yielded a total of 193 studies. Following screening each paper and implementing the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 40 articles were chosen. In the spreader graft group, from 21 studies reporting complications, 6 of them reported no complication. The most common complications were nasal obstruction, inverted V deformity and open roof deformity, deviation, and infection. In the spreader flap group, from 6 studies reporting any existing complications, 1 reported no complications. Five other studies reported some degree of complications. In terms of revision rate, 10 patients (0.62%) underwent revision surgery after spreader graft placement, while only 2 patients (0.35%) revised surgically in the spreader flap group. CONCLUSION: These two methods seem to have no significant difference in terms of complication rates, and both are recommended as a choice in middle vault reconstruction when each of their clinical use is indicated. 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.