Cargando…
A Comparasion in Graft Resorption between Three Techniques of Diced Cartilage Using Surgical Blade, Electrical Grinder and Grater in Rabbit
BACKGROUND: In recent years, there is an increasing tendency to use diced cartilage grafts in rhinoplasty surgery for improving dorsum contour irregularities. This study was designed to compare graft resorption between three techniques of diced cartilage using surgical blade, electrical grinder and...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Iranian Society for Plastic Surgeons
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4236984/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25489525 |
_version_ | 1782345274175258624 |
---|---|
author | Manafi, Ali Sabet, Mohammad Emami, Abolhasan Vasei, Mohammad Mosavi, Jaber Manafi, Amir Hamedi, Zahra Sadat Manafi, Farzad Mehrabani, Golnoush Manafi, Navid |
author_facet | Manafi, Ali Sabet, Mohammad Emami, Abolhasan Vasei, Mohammad Mosavi, Jaber Manafi, Amir Hamedi, Zahra Sadat Manafi, Farzad Mehrabani, Golnoush Manafi, Navid |
author_sort | Manafi, Ali |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: In recent years, there is an increasing tendency to use diced cartilage grafts in rhinoplasty surgery for improving dorsum contour irregularities. This study was designed to compare graft resorption between three techniques of diced cartilage using surgical blade, electrical grinder and grater in rabbit model. METHODS: Thirteen New Zealand rabbits were divided into three groups. Three 2×2 cm cartilage specimens were harvested from one of their ears. In group one, the cartilage was diced by use of No:11 surgical blade to o.5 to 1 mm cube pieces. In group two, an electrical grinder was used and in group three, a grater was applied. The grafts were placed in three subcutaneous pockets in the back of rabbits and after 12 weeks, the implants were removed and their weight and volume were recorded and were evaluated by histological techniques. RESULTS: There was no difference between the three methods in the 3 groups for graft resorption. There was no change in the volume, but the weight showed a decrease in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: As the histological results had no statistically difference between groups, we may recommend use of these two techniques in reconstructive and in aesthetic cases. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4236984 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2014 |
publisher | Iranian Society for Plastic Surgeons |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-42369842014-12-08 A Comparasion in Graft Resorption between Three Techniques of Diced Cartilage Using Surgical Blade, Electrical Grinder and Grater in Rabbit Manafi, Ali Sabet, Mohammad Emami, Abolhasan Vasei, Mohammad Mosavi, Jaber Manafi, Amir Hamedi, Zahra Sadat Manafi, Farzad Mehrabani, Golnoush Manafi, Navid World J Plast Surg Original Article BACKGROUND: In recent years, there is an increasing tendency to use diced cartilage grafts in rhinoplasty surgery for improving dorsum contour irregularities. This study was designed to compare graft resorption between three techniques of diced cartilage using surgical blade, electrical grinder and grater in rabbit model. METHODS: Thirteen New Zealand rabbits were divided into three groups. Three 2×2 cm cartilage specimens were harvested from one of their ears. In group one, the cartilage was diced by use of No:11 surgical blade to o.5 to 1 mm cube pieces. In group two, an electrical grinder was used and in group three, a grater was applied. The grafts were placed in three subcutaneous pockets in the back of rabbits and after 12 weeks, the implants were removed and their weight and volume were recorded and were evaluated by histological techniques. RESULTS: There was no difference between the three methods in the 3 groups for graft resorption. There was no change in the volume, but the weight showed a decrease in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: As the histological results had no statistically difference between groups, we may recommend use of these two techniques in reconstructive and in aesthetic cases. Iranian Society for Plastic Surgeons 2014-01 /pmc/articles/PMC4236984/ /pubmed/25489525 Text en This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Manafi, Ali Sabet, Mohammad Emami, Abolhasan Vasei, Mohammad Mosavi, Jaber Manafi, Amir Hamedi, Zahra Sadat Manafi, Farzad Mehrabani, Golnoush Manafi, Navid A Comparasion in Graft Resorption between Three Techniques of Diced Cartilage Using Surgical Blade, Electrical Grinder and Grater in Rabbit |
title | A Comparasion in Graft Resorption between Three Techniques of Diced Cartilage Using Surgical Blade, Electrical Grinder and Grater in Rabbit |
title_full | A Comparasion in Graft Resorption between Three Techniques of Diced Cartilage Using Surgical Blade, Electrical Grinder and Grater in Rabbit |
title_fullStr | A Comparasion in Graft Resorption between Three Techniques of Diced Cartilage Using Surgical Blade, Electrical Grinder and Grater in Rabbit |
title_full_unstemmed | A Comparasion in Graft Resorption between Three Techniques of Diced Cartilage Using Surgical Blade, Electrical Grinder and Grater in Rabbit |
title_short | A Comparasion in Graft Resorption between Three Techniques of Diced Cartilage Using Surgical Blade, Electrical Grinder and Grater in Rabbit |
title_sort | comparasion in graft resorption between three techniques of diced cartilage using surgical blade, electrical grinder and grater in rabbit |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4236984/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25489525 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT manafiali acomparasioningraftresorptionbetweenthreetechniquesofdicedcartilageusingsurgicalbladeelectricalgrinderandgraterinrabbit AT sabetmohammad acomparasioningraftresorptionbetweenthreetechniquesofdicedcartilageusingsurgicalbladeelectricalgrinderandgraterinrabbit AT emamiabolhasan acomparasioningraftresorptionbetweenthreetechniquesofdicedcartilageusingsurgicalbladeelectricalgrinderandgraterinrabbit AT vaseimohammad acomparasioningraftresorptionbetweenthreetechniquesofdicedcartilageusingsurgicalbladeelectricalgrinderandgraterinrabbit AT mosavijaber acomparasioningraftresorptionbetweenthreetechniquesofdicedcartilageusingsurgicalbladeelectricalgrinderandgraterinrabbit AT manafiamir acomparasioningraftresorptionbetweenthreetechniquesofdicedcartilageusingsurgicalbladeelectricalgrinderandgraterinrabbit AT hamedizahrasadat acomparasioningraftresorptionbetweenthreetechniquesofdicedcartilageusingsurgicalbladeelectricalgrinderandgraterinrabbit AT manafifarzad acomparasioningraftresorptionbetweenthreetechniquesofdicedcartilageusingsurgicalbladeelectricalgrinderandgraterinrabbit AT mehrabanigolnoush acomparasioningraftresorptionbetweenthreetechniquesofdicedcartilageusingsurgicalbladeelectricalgrinderandgraterinrabbit AT manafinavid acomparasioningraftresorptionbetweenthreetechniquesofdicedcartilageusingsurgicalbladeelectricalgrinderandgraterinrabbit AT manafiali comparasioningraftresorptionbetweenthreetechniquesofdicedcartilageusingsurgicalbladeelectricalgrinderandgraterinrabbit AT sabetmohammad comparasioningraftresorptionbetweenthreetechniquesofdicedcartilageusingsurgicalbladeelectricalgrinderandgraterinrabbit AT emamiabolhasan comparasioningraftresorptionbetweenthreetechniquesofdicedcartilageusingsurgicalbladeelectricalgrinderandgraterinrabbit AT vaseimohammad comparasioningraftresorptionbetweenthreetechniquesofdicedcartilageusingsurgicalbladeelectricalgrinderandgraterinrabbit AT mosavijaber comparasioningraftresorptionbetweenthreetechniquesofdicedcartilageusingsurgicalbladeelectricalgrinderandgraterinrabbit AT manafiamir comparasioningraftresorptionbetweenthreetechniquesofdicedcartilageusingsurgicalbladeelectricalgrinderandgraterinrabbit AT hamedizahrasadat comparasioningraftresorptionbetweenthreetechniquesofdicedcartilageusingsurgicalbladeelectricalgrinderandgraterinrabbit AT manafifarzad comparasioningraftresorptionbetweenthreetechniquesofdicedcartilageusingsurgicalbladeelectricalgrinderandgraterinrabbit AT mehrabanigolnoush comparasioningraftresorptionbetweenthreetechniquesofdicedcartilageusingsurgicalbladeelectricalgrinderandgraterinrabbit AT manafinavid comparasioningraftresorptionbetweenthreetechniquesofdicedcartilageusingsurgicalbladeelectricalgrinderandgraterinrabbit |