PDF herunterladen
Facial Plast Surg 2003; 19(4): 317-324
DOI: 10.1055/s-2004-815651
Copyright © 2003 by Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc., 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA. Tel.: +1(212) 584-4662

Reduction Structured Rhinoplasty

Thomas Romo, III1,2,3,4 , Peyman Soliemanzadeh1 , Kyle S. Choe1 , Anthony P. Sclafani1,2,3
  • 1Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, The New York Eye and Ear Infirmary, New York, NY
  • 2Division of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, The New York Eye and Ear Infirmary, New York, NY
  • 3Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, New York Medical College, Valhalla, NY
  • 4Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Division of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, NY
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

Publikationsdatum:
22. Januar 2004 (online)

    Lizenzen und Reprints

ABSTRACT

Rhinoplastic surgeons continue to seek technical refinements that will result in a consistently reliable postoperative outcome. Over the past 25 years there has been a steady progression away from the simple Joseph reductive rhinoplasty technique toward the use of various grafts to improve both the functional outcomes and aesthetic end result of this procedure. The original reductive template continues to be a major component of a new conceptual paradigm, which has evolved to incorporate the understanding that structural components must be placed to allow a more precise outcome. Specifically, once the nose is reduced to proportions that correspond to the preoperative analysis, separate grafts and implants are placed to prevent a change in the shape of the nose by the constricting effects of the skin shrink-wrapping around the skeletal framework. This article focuses on the use of implants for structural architecture in the senior author's primary reduction-structured rhinoplasty cases.

KEYWORDS

High-density porous polyethylene - Medpor - reduction-structured rhinoplasty - alloplasts

REFERENCES

  • 1 Romo T. Revision rhinoplasty: a facial plastic surgeon's perspective. In: Romo T, Millman AL, ed. Aesthetic Facial Plastic Surgery New York: Thieme Medical Publishers 2000 : 140-152
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Sheen J H. Achieving more nasal tip projection by the use of a small autogenous vomer or septal cartilage graft. A preliminary report.  Plast Reconstr Surg . 1975;  56 35-40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Sheen J H. A new look at supratip deformity.  Ann Plast Surg . 1979;  3 498-504
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Tebbetts J P. Rethinking the logic and techniques of primary tip rhinoplasty: a prospective of the evolution of surgery of the nasal tip.  Clin Plast Surg . 1996;  23 245-253
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Sheen J H. Rhinoplasty: personal evolution and milestones.  Plast Reconstr Surg . 2000;  105 1820-1852
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Constantian M B. Four common anatomic variants that predispose to unfavorable rhinoplasty results: a study based on 150 consecutive secondary rhinoplasties.  Plast Reconstr Surg . 2000;  150 316-331
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Tardy M E, Becker D, Weinberger M. Illusions in rhinoplasty.  Facial Plast Surg . 1995;  2 117-137
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Guyuron B. Dynamics in rhinoplasty.  Plast Reconstr Surg . 2000;  105 2257-2259
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Sheen J H. The ideal dorsal graft: a continuing quest.  Plast Reconstr Surg . 1998;  102 2490-2493
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Lovice D B, Mingrone M D, Toriumi D M. Grafts and implants in rhinoplasty and nasal reconstruction.  Otolaryngol Clin North Am . 1999;  32 113-141
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Welling D B, Maves M D, Schuller D E. et al . Irradiated homologous cartilage grafts: long term results.  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg . 1988;  114 291-295
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Toriumi D M, Larrabee W F, Walike J W. et al . Demineralized bone.  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg . 1990;  116 676-680
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Brown B L, Neel H B, Kern E B. Implants of Supramid, Proplast, Plastipore, and Silastic.  Arch Otolaryngol . 1979;  105 605-609
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Davis P KB, Jones S M. The complications of Silastic implants: experience with 137 consecutive patients.  Br J Plast Surg . 1971;  24 405-411
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Fanous N. Mersilene tip implants in rhinoplasty: a review of 98 cases.  Plast Reconstr Surg . 1991;  87 662-671
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Colton J J, Beekhuis G J. Use of mersilene mesh in nasal augmentation.  Facial Plast Surg . 1992;  8 149-156
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Romo T, Sclafani A P, Sabini P. Use of porous high-density polyethylene in revision rhinoplasty and in the platyrrhine nose.  Aesth Plast Surg . 1998;  22 211-221
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Romo T, Shapiro A L. Aesthetic reconstruction of the platyrrhine nose.  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg . 1992;  118 837-841
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Romo T, Sclafani A P, Sabini P. Reconstruction of the major saddle nose deformity using composite alloimplants.  Facial Plast Surg . 1998;  14 151-157
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Romo T, Sclafani A P, Jacono A A. Nasal reconstruction using porous polyethylene implants.  Facial Plast Surg . 2000;  16 55-61
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Guyuron B, DeLuca L, Lash R. Supratip deformity: a closer look.  Plast Reconstr Surg . 2000;  105 1140-1151
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Romo T, McLaughlin L A, Levine J M. et al . Nasal implants: autogenous, semisynthetic, and synthetic.  Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am . 2002;  10 155-166
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Breadon G E, Kern E B, Neel H B. Autografts of crushed and uncrushed bone and cartilage.  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg . 1979;  105 75-80
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Tardy M E, Denneny J, Fritsch M H. The versatile cartilage autograft in reconstruction of the nose and face.  Laryngoscope . 1985;  95 523-533
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Porter J P. Grafts in rhinoplasty: alloplastic vs autogenous.  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg . 2000;  126 558-561
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Adamson P A. Grafts in rhinoplasty: autogenous grafts are superior to alloplastic.  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg . 2000;  126 561-562
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Maas C S, Monihan N, Shah S B. Implants in rhinoplasty.  Facial Plast Surg . 1998;  13 279-290
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Vuyk H D, Adamson P A. Biomaterials in rhinoplasty.  Clin Otolaryngol . 1998;  23 209-217
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Niechajev I. Porous polyethylene implants for nasal reconstruction: clinical and histologic studies.  Aesth Plast Surg . 1999;  23 395-402
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Turegen M, Sengezer M, Guler M. Reconstruction of saddle nose deformities using porous polyethylene implant.  Aesth Plast Surg . 1998;  22 38-41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Sclafani A P, Thomas J R, Coc A J. et al . Clinical and histologic response of subcutaneous expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (Gore-Tex) and porous high-density polyethylene (Medpor) implants to acute and early infection.  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg . 1997;  123 328-336
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Godin M S, Waldman S R, Johnson C M. Nasal augmentation using Gore-Tex. A 10-year experience.  Arch Facial Plast Surg . 1999;  1 118-121
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Conrad K, Gillman G. A 6-year experience with the use of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene in rhinoplasty.  Plast Reconstr Surg . 1998;  101 1675-1683
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Owsley T G, Taylor C O. The use of Gore-Tex for nasal augmentation: a retrospective analysis of 106 patients.  Plast Reconstr Surg . 1994;  94 241-250
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
      >