Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 7-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Revision Rhinoplasty: A 12-year Experience of 83 Patients

Revision Rhinoplasty: A 12-year Experience of 83 Patients Aesthetic Abstracts PSTM Abstracts Supplement DISCUSSION: Revision rhinoplasties remain a challenge, AESTHETIC ABSTRACTS with almost a quarter of patients requiring at least two Revision Rhinoplasty: A 12-year revision procedures following primary rhinoplasty. These Experience of 83 Patients patients were more complex and likely to have a history of trauma, cocaine use and/or previous septoplasty, and with Presenter: Susan McCrossan, MBChB, 20.4% (n = 17) requiring cartilage grafting. Young female patients tended to require only minor revision with rasping MRCS of bony prominences or further overlapping of the lateral crura to refine the tip with good outcomes. The modern day Co-Authors: Serena Martin, MD, Chris rhinoplasty surgeons must ensure they have multiple tools Hill, FRCS Plas available to manage this increasingly complex patient group and not be afraid to decline further revision procedures to Affiliation: Pinderfields General Hospital, patients with unrealistic expectations. Wakefield, United Kingdom Aesthetic Characteristics of the Ideal INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE: Revision rhino- Female Breast plasty can be technically challenging and usually further complicated by patient expectations following what they Presenter: Jonathan Bekisz, MD, MSci deem to be a previous unsatisfactory rhinoplasty. With reported revision rates between 5% and 15% in the litera- Co-Authors: Ara Salibian, MD, Carter ture, it is important to evaluate why patients request revision Boyd, MD, MBA, M. David Gothard, MS, surgery, what techniques can be utilized, the outcomes of Mihye Choi, MD, Nolan Karp, MD revision rhinoplasty and what associated factors may lead 2021 PSTM ABSTRACTS some patients to require multiple revisions. Affiliation: New York University Langone Health METHODS: A retrospective review of private practice patients of a single surgeon performing revision rhinoplasty BACKGROUND: The female breast has long been a sub- during a 12-year period from 2008 to 2020. Data extracted ject of tremendous focus within plastic surgery. Whether included patient demographics, indication for primary and for aesthetic or reconstructive purposes, breast surgery secondary rhinoplasty, including specialty of surgeon, oper- occupies a place of significance in the field. Interest in this ative technique, history of trauma, cocaine use, time since topic also extends to the larger medical and lay commu- primary rhinoplasty, and need for tertiary rhinoplasty. nities. There currently exists much debate about the ideal aesthetic characteristics of the female breast. Much of the RESULTS: Eighty-three patients underwent revision rhi- work to date has centered on the preferences and opinions noplasty between 2008 and 2020. In total, 76% were women of professionals in the field, with little information about (n = 63) and 24% men (n = 20). The average age was 31.4 those traits that patients and others in the lay community years; the majority (37%) were in the age group of 17–27 find most important and cosmetically-appealing. This study years. An estimated 76% (n = 63) were secondary rhino- aimed to fill that void by providing a comprehensive assess- plasties; 14% (n = 12) tertiary rhinoplasties; 4% (n = 3), ment of anatomic and aesthetic breast characteristics valued 4% (n = 3), and 2% (n = 2) had a total of 4, 5, and 6 rhino- by the general public to guide plastic surgeons and others plasties, respectively. The average length of time between performing surgery on the female breast toward improving primary and secondary rhinoplasty was 17.8 months (range outcomes and achieving the highest satisfaction. 4 months–40 years). Top three reasons for the original pri- mary rhinoplasty were dorsal hump (42%, n = 35), septal deviation (23%, n = 19), and bulbous tip (14%, n = 12). METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of Primary rhinoplasties were performed by ENT surgeons patients presenting for consultation for aesthetic or recon- primarily or as a joint case in 26.5%. 33.7% (n = 28) had structive breast surgery at a single institution between 2009 a history of nasal trauma. Top three reasons for secondary and 2019. Those with standard preoperative photographs rhinoplasty were bony prominence (31.3%, n = 26), over- (two-dimensional) as well as three-dimensional scans (Vec- hanging columella (19.2%, n = 16), or tip droop or fullness tra, Canfield Scientific, Parsippany, N.J.) were considered for (25.3%, n = 21). further review, and a cohort of 25 patients were ultimately www.PRSGlobalOpen.com http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery Global Open Wolters Kluwer Health

Revision Rhinoplasty: A 12-year Experience of 83 Patients

Download PDF
1 page

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wolters-kluwer-health/revision-rhinoplasty-a-12-year-experience-of-83-patients-jP85HOOEub

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Wolters Kluwer Health
Copyright
Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American Society of Plastic Surgeons. All rights reserved.
eISSN
2169-7574
DOI
10.1097/gox.0000000000003862
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Aesthetic Abstracts PSTM Abstracts Supplement DISCUSSION: Revision rhinoplasties remain a challenge, AESTHETIC ABSTRACTS with almost a quarter of patients requiring at least two Revision Rhinoplasty: A 12-year revision procedures following primary rhinoplasty. These Experience of 83 Patients patients were more complex and likely to have a history of trauma, cocaine use and/or previous septoplasty, and with Presenter: Susan McCrossan, MBChB, 20.4% (n = 17) requiring cartilage grafting. Young female patients tended to require only minor revision with rasping MRCS of bony prominences or further overlapping of the lateral crura to refine the tip with good outcomes. The modern day Co-Authors: Serena Martin, MD, Chris rhinoplasty surgeons must ensure they have multiple tools Hill, FRCS Plas available to manage this increasingly complex patient group and not be afraid to decline further revision procedures to Affiliation: Pinderfields General Hospital, patients with unrealistic expectations. Wakefield, United Kingdom Aesthetic Characteristics of the Ideal INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE: Revision rhino- Female Breast plasty can be technically challenging and usually further complicated by patient expectations following what they Presenter: Jonathan Bekisz, MD, MSci deem to be a previous unsatisfactory rhinoplasty. With reported revision rates between 5% and 15% in the litera- Co-Authors: Ara Salibian, MD, Carter ture, it is important to evaluate why patients request revision Boyd, MD, MBA, M. David Gothard, MS, surgery, what techniques can be utilized, the outcomes of Mihye Choi, MD, Nolan Karp, MD revision rhinoplasty and what associated factors may lead 2021 PSTM ABSTRACTS some patients to require multiple revisions. Affiliation: New York University Langone Health METHODS: A retrospective review of private practice patients of a single surgeon performing revision rhinoplasty BACKGROUND: The female breast has long been a sub- during a 12-year period from 2008 to 2020. Data extracted ject of tremendous focus within plastic surgery. Whether included patient demographics, indication for primary and for aesthetic or reconstructive purposes, breast surgery secondary rhinoplasty, including specialty of surgeon, oper- occupies a place of significance in the field. Interest in this ative technique, history of trauma, cocaine use, time since topic also extends to the larger medical and lay commu- primary rhinoplasty, and need for tertiary rhinoplasty. nities. There currently exists much debate about the ideal aesthetic characteristics of the female breast. Much of the RESULTS: Eighty-three patients underwent revision rhi- work to date has centered on the preferences and opinions noplasty between 2008 and 2020. In total, 76% were women of professionals in the field, with little information about (n = 63) and 24% men (n = 20). The average age was 31.4 those traits that patients and others in the lay community years; the majority (37%) were in the age group of 17–27 find most important and cosmetically-appealing. This study years. An estimated 76% (n = 63) were secondary rhino- aimed to fill that void by providing a comprehensive assess- plasties; 14% (n = 12) tertiary rhinoplasties; 4% (n = 3), ment of anatomic and aesthetic breast characteristics valued 4% (n = 3), and 2% (n = 2) had a total of 4, 5, and 6 rhino- by the general public to guide plastic surgeons and others plasties, respectively. The average length of time between performing surgery on the female breast toward improving primary and secondary rhinoplasty was 17.8 months (range outcomes and achieving the highest satisfaction. 4 months–40 years). Top three reasons for the original pri- mary rhinoplasty were dorsal hump (42%, n = 35), septal deviation (23%, n = 19), and bulbous tip (14%, n = 12). METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of Primary rhinoplasties were performed by ENT surgeons patients presenting for consultation for aesthetic or recon- primarily or as a joint case in 26.5%. 33.7% (n = 28) had structive breast surgery at a single institution between 2009 a history of nasal trauma. Top three reasons for secondary and 2019. Those with standard preoperative photographs rhinoplasty were bony prominence (31.3%, n = 26), over- (two-dimensional) as well as three-dimensional scans (Vec- hanging columella (19.2%, n = 16), or tip droop or fullness tra, Canfield Scientific, Parsippany, N.J.) were considered for (25.3%, n = 21). further review, and a cohort of 25 patients were ultimately www.PRSGlobalOpen.com

Journal

Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery Global Open – Wolters Kluwer Health

Published: Oct 20, 2021

There are no references for this article.