The Use of Autologous and Cadaveric Grafts in Rhinoplasty: A Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: Both autologous and cadaveric grafts are often used during rhinoplasty to create volume and provide support. Despite discussion in the literature comparing the efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and complication rates between grafting options, it remains unclear which is the superior choice when considering availability, donor site morbidity, and cost. There is a little description of the current use of these materials amongst facial plastic surgeons. METHODS: A 12 question survey was created, and IRB approval was obtained. The survey was distributed to practicing members of the AAFPRS via their membership listserv. RESULTS: 178 respondents completed the survey for an overall response rate of 17.5%. The most common rhinoplasty graft types used by respondents were autologous septal cartilage (96.6%), autologous auricular grafts (93.8%), autologous rib graft (ARG) (75.8%), and cadaveric rib graft (CRG) (56.7%). Patient comorbidities and performing more than 50 rhinoplasties per year were positively correlated with use of CRG grafts and concerns about complications and cost were negatively correlated. CONCLUSIONS: While autologous septal and auricular cartilage remain the most common graft choices amongst surveyed facial plastic surgeons, a majority utilize cadaveric rib grafts in their practice. Patient comorbidities, surgery volume, concerns about graft complications, and cost were the chief factors associated with use of cadaveric grafts amongst survey respondents. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V: 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 .

Are nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs effective enough for postoperative pain control after functional endoscopic sinus surgery and septoplasty? A randomized, controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) and septoplasty are commonly performed procedures without standardized postoperative pain regimens. There is reluctance to prescribe opioids for postoperative pain given their potential for abuse. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been demonstrated to reduce or even obviate the need for opioid pain medications after otolaryngologic surgeries, but prospective validation is lacking. METHODS: A randomized, controlled study comparing the efficacy of diclofenac sodium to hydrocodone/acetaminophen (APAP) after ESS with or without septoplasty was performed. Participants were given a 100-mm visual analog pain scale (VAS) at postoperative days (PODs) 1, 2, 3, and 5 after ESS. Two-sample t tests were used to compare pain scores between groups. RESULTS: One hundred patients enrolled, and 74 patients provided pain scores to the survey. Pain was greatest for both groups on POD 1. Treatment with diclofenac sodium vs hydrocodone/APAP did not statistically impact pain scores at PODs 1, 2, 3, or 5. No cases of epistaxis requiring an emergency room visit or return to the operating room were noted during the study period. CONCLUSION: Diclofenac sodium may be non-inferior to hydrocodone/APAP in treating pain after ESS with or without septoplasty in opioid naive patients without pre-existing pain conditions. Further studies with larger samples are warranted to investigate the potential superiority of diclofenac to hydrocodone/APAP in certain patients after ESS and septoplasty.

Cost Utility Analysis of Costal Cartilage Autografts and Human Cadaveric Allografts in Rhinoplasty.

BACKGROUND: Human cadaveric allograft (HCA) and costal cartilage autograft (CCA) have been described for reconstruction during rhinoplasty. Neither are ideal due to infection, resorption, and donor site morbidity. The clear superiority of 1 graft over the other has not yet been demonstrated. This study assesses comparative costs associated with current grafting materials to better explore the cost ceiling for a theoretical tissue engineered implant. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cost utility analysis was performed. Initial procedure costs include physician fees (CPT 30420), hospital outpatient prospective payments, ambulatory surgical center payments, and fees for the following: rib graft (CPT 20910), hospital observation, and DRG (155) for inpatient admission. Additional costs for revision procedure, included the following fees: physician (CPT 30345), rib graft, hospital outpatient prospective payment, and ambulatory surgical center payments. Total costs under each scenario were calculated with and without the revision procedure. Comparison of total costs for each potential outcome to the estimated health utility value allowed for comparison across rhinoplasty subgroups. RESULTS: The mean cost of primary outpatient rhinoplasty using HCA and CCA were $8075 and $8342 respectively. Revision outpatient rhinoplasty averaged $7447 and increased to $8228 if costal cartilage harvest was required. Hospital admission increased the cost of primary rhinoplasty with CCA to $8609 for observational admission and to $13653 for 1 day inpatient admission. Revision CCA rhinoplasty with an inpatient admission complicated by pneumothorax increased costs to $21 099. CONCLUSION: Cost of rhinoplasty without hospitalization was similar between HCA and CCA and this cost represents the lower limit of a practical cost for an engineered graft. Considering complications such as need for revision or for admission after CCA due to surgical morbidity, the upper limit of cost for an engineered implant would approximately double.

Remote monitoring of head and neck free flaps using near infrared spectroscopic tissue oximetry.

PURPOSE: Near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) measures tissue oximetry and perfusion of free tissue transfer with the advantage of remote wireless monitoring for free tissue transfer. It has been widely used in breast and extremity reconstruction but has had limited adoption in the head and neck. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of head and neck microvascular reconstruction by three different surgical services over 15 months at one tertiary care hospital was performed. Demographics, flap type, monitoring technique, complications, and flap outcomes were recorded. Monitoring techniques were (1) implantable/handheld Doppler or (2) NIRS. Flap monitoring outcomes were evaluated using multivariate analysis. RESULTS: 119 flaps were performed by four surgeons with a success rate of 92% (109/119). Flaps were monitored with Doppler (40%) or NIRS (60%). There was no difference in flap success based on monitoring technique. An ROC analysis identified that the optimal cutoff in immediate StO2 for classifying flap success at discharge was 68%. CONCLUSIONS: NIRS was successfully implemented in a high-volume head and neck reconstructive practice. NIRS remote monitoring allowed for flap surveillance without requiring in-hospital presence and was able to identify both arterial and venous compromise.