4.4 Article

Impact of Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty Versus Dorsal Hump Resection on the Internal Nasal Valve: a Quantitative Radiological Study

期刊

AESTHETIC PLASTIC SURGERY
卷 44, 期 3, 页码 879-887

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00266-020-01627-z

关键词

Dorsal preservation rhinoplasty; Validation; Rhinoplasty; Validated internal nasal valve measures; Hump reduction

类别

资金

  1. Egyptian Cultural and Educational Bureau

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background This study evaluates the impact of different hump takedown techniques, namely the conventional hump resection with midvault reconstruction, the push-down (PD) and the let-down (LD) procedures, on the INV dimensions. Methods In this cadaveric study, six heads were divided randomly into either the conventional hump resection technique (Group A; n = 6 sides) or DPR techniques (n = 6 sides). This latter group was subdivided such that initially a PD procedure was performed (Group B; n = 6 sides), followed by a LD procedure on the same heads (Group C; n = 6 sides). A validated radiological method was used to measure the INV angle and cross-sectional area (CSA) in a modified coronal plane both pre- and post-procedurally. Results Group A did not show significant reduction in the INV angle nor in CSA (p = 0.068 and p = 0.156, respectively). In the push-down group (B), we observed a mean change of 2.05 degrees in the angles and 0.3 cm(2) in the CSA (p = 0.0163 and p < 0.001, respectively). The LD group (C) did not show significant reduction in the INV angle nor in CSA (p = 0.437 and p = 0.331, respectively). Conclusion Neither the conventional hump resection nor the LD DPR technique reduced the INV dimensions. However, the PD preservation technique significantly reduced the INV dimensions. Level of Evidence III This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据