4.0 Article

Frontal Bone Cranioplasty for Facial Feminization: Long-Term Follow-Up of Postoperative Sinonasal Symptoms

Journal

Publisher

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/fpsam.2021.0037

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

After long-term follow-up of patients who underwent forehead feminization cranioplasty (FFC), it was found that violation of the frontal sinus did not result in worse sinus or headache symptoms compared to mucosal preservation.
Background: Forehead feminization cranioplasty (FFC) risks entering the frontal sinus to achieve the desired contour. To date, no study has investigated long-term FFC complications. Objective: Determine if long-term sinus and headache symptoms worsen secondary to frontal sinus mucosal violation, measured by patient-reported outcomes. Methods: Single database retrospective chart review of patients who underwent forehead contouring between August 2012 and August 2019 was conducted. Two cohorts-frontal sinus mucosal violation versus mucosal preservation-were surveyed postprocedurely for postprocedure SNOT (Sinonasal Outcome Test)-22 scores and pre- and postprocedure sinus and headache symptoms. Results: Frontal sinus violation, mean time between surgery and response was 4.16 +/- 1.88 years (range: 1-8). Without violation, mean time between surgery and response was 2.5 +/- 1.10 years (range: 1-5). Postoperative SNOT-22 severity scores were not different (12.55 vs. 8.6, p = 0.20). Postoperative SNOT-22 scores were equivalent to a control nonrhinosinusitis population. No difference was found between violation of the frontal sinus with worse postoperative sinus (22 vs. 5, p = 0.60) or headache symptoms. Conclusion: Our data did not detect a difference in sinus or headache outcomes in patients who experienced violation of the anterior frontal table compared with a similar population with preservation of the frontal sinus, over an 8-year follow-up.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available