Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Primary rhinocheiloplasty: Comparison of open and closed methods of alar cartilage reposition.

Abstract

AIMS

To establish which rhinoplasty method for primary repairing of unilateral cleft lip (UCL) is better.

SETTINGS AND DESIGN

Two patient groups with cleft lip were compared. Each group was operated on either by McComb's technique as closed rhinoplasty method or by Vissarionov-Kosin technique as an open method.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

First group included 29 patients and the second consisted of 31. All patients were operated on by single surgeon over 10 years. Randomization was based on wishes and intention of surgeon to use one of two methods. Evaluation of results was based on impartial data, and subjective information collected from respondents with different levels of knowledge about UCL. The objective scale was based on the evaluation of five noticeable residual deformations of nose that usually appear after primary lip-nose surgery: Alar flattening, low position of alar, widening or narrowing of nostril, and deformation of the upper part of nostril rim. Subjective evaluation was based on the opinion of respondents who were ranged every case depending on own judgment.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Was performed using Fisher method and Chi-square by Statistica 10.0, StatSoft Inc.

RESULTS

Approach with general analysis indicated no difference between two methods. Despite of absence of clear differences between two groups we consider the closed rhinoplasty more favorable due to less damage to alar cartilages and no scars inside nostrils.

CONCLUSIONS

We think that mentioned scarring may complicate secondary rhinoplasty, which is often needed to correct nose deformation.

Links

  • PMC Free PDF
  • PMC Free Full Text
  • FREE Publisher Full Text
  • Authors+Show Affiliations

    ,

    Department of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, Federal State Budgetary, Russian Children's Clinical Hospital, Ministry of Health Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia.

    ,

    Department of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, Federal State Budgetary, Russian Children's Clinical Hospital, Ministry of Health Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia.

    Department of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, Federal State Budgetary, Russian Children's Clinical Hospital, Ministry of Health Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia.

    Source

    Pub Type(s)

    Journal Article

    Language

    eng

    PubMed ID

    27563601

    Citation

    Yasonov, S A., et al. "Primary Rhinocheiloplasty: Comparison of Open and Closed Methods of Alar Cartilage Reposition." Annals of Maxillofacial Surgery, vol. 6, no. 1, 2016, pp. 21-4.
    Yasonov SA, Lopatin AV, Kugushev AY. Primary rhinocheiloplasty: Comparison of open and closed methods of alar cartilage reposition. Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2016;6(1):21-4.
    Yasonov, S. A., Lopatin, A. V., & Kugushev, A. Y. (2016). Primary rhinocheiloplasty: Comparison of open and closed methods of alar cartilage reposition. Annals of Maxillofacial Surgery, 6(1), pp. 21-4. doi:10.4103/2231-0746.186139.
    Yasonov SA, Lopatin AV, Kugushev AY. Primary Rhinocheiloplasty: Comparison of Open and Closed Methods of Alar Cartilage Reposition. Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2016;6(1):21-4. PubMed PMID: 27563601.
    * Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
    TY - JOUR T1 - Primary rhinocheiloplasty: Comparison of open and closed methods of alar cartilage reposition. AU - Yasonov,S A, AU - Lopatin,A V, AU - Kugushev,A Yu, PY - 2016/8/27/entrez PY - 2016/8/27/pubmed PY - 2016/8/27/medline KW - Cleft lip KW - nose deformation KW - primary rhinocheiloplasty KW - rhinoplasty KW - unilateral SP - 21 EP - 4 JF - Annals of maxillofacial surgery JO - Ann Maxillofac Surg VL - 6 IS - 1 N2 - AIMS: To establish which rhinoplasty method for primary repairing of unilateral cleft lip (UCL) is better. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: Two patient groups with cleft lip were compared. Each group was operated on either by McComb's technique as closed rhinoplasty method or by Vissarionov-Kosin technique as an open method. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: First group included 29 patients and the second consisted of 31. All patients were operated on by single surgeon over 10 years. Randomization was based on wishes and intention of surgeon to use one of two methods. Evaluation of results was based on impartial data, and subjective information collected from respondents with different levels of knowledge about UCL. The objective scale was based on the evaluation of five noticeable residual deformations of nose that usually appear after primary lip-nose surgery: Alar flattening, low position of alar, widening or narrowing of nostril, and deformation of the upper part of nostril rim. Subjective evaluation was based on the opinion of respondents who were ranged every case depending on own judgment. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Was performed using Fisher method and Chi-square by Statistica 10.0, StatSoft Inc. RESULTS: Approach with general analysis indicated no difference between two methods. Despite of absence of clear differences between two groups we consider the closed rhinoplasty more favorable due to less damage to alar cartilages and no scars inside nostrils. CONCLUSIONS: We think that mentioned scarring may complicate secondary rhinoplasty, which is often needed to correct nose deformation. SN - 2231-0746 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/27563601/Primary_rhinocheiloplasty:_Comparison_of_open_and_closed_methods_of_alar_cartilage_reposition L2 - http://www.amsjournal.com/article.asp?issn=2231-0746;year=2016;volume=6;issue=1;spage=21;epage=24;aulast=Yasonov DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -