Cargando…

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

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yasonov, S. A., Lopatin, A. V., Kugushev, A. Yu.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4979335/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27563601
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2231-0746.186139
_version_ 1782447306286563328
author Yasonov, S. A.
Lopatin, A. V.
Kugushev, A. Yu.
author_facet Yasonov, S. A.
Lopatin, A. V.
Kugushev, A. Yu.
author_sort Yasonov, S. A.
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4979335
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49793352016-08-25 Primary rhinocheiloplasty: Comparison of open and closed methods of alar cartilage reposition Yasonov, S. A. Lopatin, A. V. Kugushev, A. Yu. Ann Maxillofac Surg Original Article - Comparative Study 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. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2016 /pmc/articles/PMC4979335/ /pubmed/27563601 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2231-0746.186139 Text en Copyright: © Annals of Maxillofacial Surgery http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article - Comparative Study
Yasonov, S. A.
Lopatin, A. V.
Kugushev, A. Yu.
Primary rhinocheiloplasty: Comparison of open and closed methods of alar cartilage reposition
title Primary rhinocheiloplasty: Comparison of open and closed methods of alar cartilage reposition
title_full Primary rhinocheiloplasty: Comparison of open and closed methods of alar cartilage reposition
title_fullStr Primary rhinocheiloplasty: Comparison of open and closed methods of alar cartilage reposition
title_full_unstemmed Primary rhinocheiloplasty: Comparison of open and closed methods of alar cartilage reposition
title_short Primary rhinocheiloplasty: Comparison of open and closed methods of alar cartilage reposition
title_sort primary rhinocheiloplasty: comparison of open and closed methods of alar cartilage reposition
topic Original Article - Comparative Study
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4979335/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27563601
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2231-0746.186139
work_keys_str_mv AT yasonovsa primaryrhinocheiloplastycomparisonofopenandclosedmethodsofalarcartilagereposition
AT lopatinav primaryrhinocheiloplastycomparisonofopenandclosedmethodsofalarcartilagereposition
AT kugushevayu primaryrhinocheiloplastycomparisonofopenandclosedmethodsofalarcartilagereposition