Cargando…

Acellular dermal matrix for rhinophyma: Is it worth it? A new case report and review of literature

INTRODUCTION: nasal reconstruction after rhinophyma surgery could be challenging. In the last decade, some authors proposed the use of dermal substitutes, but only few case reports have been described throughout the Literature. PRESENTATION OF CASE: we described a new case of severe and disfiguring...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Torresetti, Matteo, Scalise, Alessandro, Di Benedetto, Giovanni
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6536489/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31129434
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijscr.2019.05.013
_version_ 1783421753725288448
author Torresetti, Matteo
Scalise, Alessandro
Di Benedetto, Giovanni
author_facet Torresetti, Matteo
Scalise, Alessandro
Di Benedetto, Giovanni
author_sort Torresetti, Matteo
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: nasal reconstruction after rhinophyma surgery could be challenging. In the last decade, some authors proposed the use of dermal substitutes, but only few case reports have been described throughout the Literature. PRESENTATION OF CASE: we described a new case of severe and disfiguring rhinophyma treated by total excision and a two-step reconstruction by using acellular dermal matrix and subsequent full-thickness skin graft. Despite an overall improvement of the nasal shape and a good functional recovery were observed after 12 months of follow-up, the aesthetic outcome was not satisfactory and the patient required further surgical revisions. DISCUSSION: the use of ADMs in rhinophyma poses some important aspects to be discussed. The resorption rate of the matrix and retraction rate of the skin graft make the final thickness of the neodermis unpredictable. Moreover the location of phymatous lesions and the extent of the surgical removal may strongly impact the final aesthetic outcome, often leading to a multistep procedure and patient dissatisfaction. CONCLUSION: although we believe that ADM represents a simple and reliable alternative for surgical reconstruction after rhinophyma, basing on our clinical experience we suggested some important tips and tricks in order to avoid surgical revisions, and both surgeons and patients should be aware about the potential drawbacks of this technique.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6536489
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65364892019-05-30 Acellular dermal matrix for rhinophyma: Is it worth it? A new case report and review of literature Torresetti, Matteo Scalise, Alessandro Di Benedetto, Giovanni Int J Surg Case Rep Article INTRODUCTION: nasal reconstruction after rhinophyma surgery could be challenging. In the last decade, some authors proposed the use of dermal substitutes, but only few case reports have been described throughout the Literature. PRESENTATION OF CASE: we described a new case of severe and disfiguring rhinophyma treated by total excision and a two-step reconstruction by using acellular dermal matrix and subsequent full-thickness skin graft. Despite an overall improvement of the nasal shape and a good functional recovery were observed after 12 months of follow-up, the aesthetic outcome was not satisfactory and the patient required further surgical revisions. DISCUSSION: the use of ADMs in rhinophyma poses some important aspects to be discussed. The resorption rate of the matrix and retraction rate of the skin graft make the final thickness of the neodermis unpredictable. Moreover the location of phymatous lesions and the extent of the surgical removal may strongly impact the final aesthetic outcome, often leading to a multistep procedure and patient dissatisfaction. CONCLUSION: although we believe that ADM represents a simple and reliable alternative for surgical reconstruction after rhinophyma, basing on our clinical experience we suggested some important tips and tricks in order to avoid surgical revisions, and both surgeons and patients should be aware about the potential drawbacks of this technique. Elsevier 2019-05-11 /pmc/articles/PMC6536489/ /pubmed/31129434 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijscr.2019.05.013 Text en © 2019 The Authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Torresetti, Matteo
Scalise, Alessandro
Di Benedetto, Giovanni
Acellular dermal matrix for rhinophyma: Is it worth it? A new case report and review of literature
title Acellular dermal matrix for rhinophyma: Is it worth it? A new case report and review of literature
title_full Acellular dermal matrix for rhinophyma: Is it worth it? A new case report and review of literature
title_fullStr Acellular dermal matrix for rhinophyma: Is it worth it? A new case report and review of literature
title_full_unstemmed Acellular dermal matrix for rhinophyma: Is it worth it? A new case report and review of literature
title_short Acellular dermal matrix for rhinophyma: Is it worth it? A new case report and review of literature
title_sort acellular dermal matrix for rhinophyma: is it worth it? a new case report and review of literature
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6536489/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31129434
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijscr.2019.05.013
work_keys_str_mv AT torresettimatteo acellulardermalmatrixforrhinophymaisitworthitanewcasereportandreviewofliterature
AT scalisealessandro acellulardermalmatrixforrhinophymaisitworthitanewcasereportandreviewofliterature
AT dibenedettogiovanni acellulardermalmatrixforrhinophymaisitworthitanewcasereportandreviewofliterature