Pollybeak deformity in rhinoplasty: prevention and treatment.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with pollybeak deformity who underwent rhinoplasty were analyzed retrospectively and across centers to identify their primary risk factors, preventative measures, and treatment modalities. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The retrospective data of 100 pollybeak deformity cases (61 males and 39 females) were enrolled in our study. The causes leading to pollybeak deformity were evaluated and classified as (1) Over-resected bony dorsum, (2) Excessive supra tip scarring, and (3) Inefficient tip support causing an under-projected tip. The treatments applied to patients with pollybeak deformity were retrospectively evaluated and classified as (1) Triamcinolone acetonide injections (one or two injections), (2) Filler injection over the bony dorsum to balance, (3) Using a graft to achieve the desired nose shape, (4) Trimming down the excessive supra tip soft tissue and/or tip cartilage, and (5) Enforcing the tip support. RESULTS: Our results showed that the major cause of pollybeak deformity was excessive supra-tip scarring (48%). The other reasons are inefficient tip support, causing an under-projected tip (28%), and over-resected bony dorsum (24%). The modalities for the treatment of pollybeak deformity were (1) Trimming down the excessive supra tip soft tissue and/or tip cartilage (30%), (2) Triamcinolone acetonide injections (one or two injections) (28%), or (3) Enforcing the tip support (28%), (4) Using a graft to achieve the desired nose shape (14%) and (5) Filler injection over the bony dorsum to balance (6%). In some patients, more than one treatment modality was applied. Triamcinolone acetonide or filler injections were the non-surgical therapies for pollybeak deformities. CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that excessive supra-tip scarring is not directly related to a surgical error but rather depends on the patient and tissue healing. Care should be taken to avoid over-resecting the bony dorsum. Tip support should be provided to prevent inefficient tip support from causing an under-projected tip. However, efforts should be made to minimize supra-tip dead space and possibly proceeding pollybeak formation through proper bandaging.

Comparative study between remifentanil (or fentanyl) and dexmedetomidine for the analgesia of rhinoplasty: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Remifentanil (or fentanyl) and dexmedetomidine may have some potential to improve the analgesia of rhinoplasty, and this meta-analysis aims to compare their efficacy for the analgesia of rhinoplasty. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, EBSCO, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched, and we included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the analgesic effect of remifentanil (or fentanyl) versus dexmedetomidine for rhinoplasty. RESULTS: Four RCTs were finally included in the meta-analysis. In patients undergoing rhinoplasty, remifentanil (or fentanyl) infusion and dexmedetomidine infusion resulted in similar good patient satisfaction (odd ratio [OR] = 2.71; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.63 to 11.64; P = .18), good surgeon satisfaction (OR = 1.68; 95% CI = 0.02 to 181.40; P = .83), extubation time (mean difference [MD] = 7.56; 95% CI = -11.00 to 26.12; P = .42), recovery time (MD = -2.25; 95% CI = -23.41 to 18.91; P = .83), additional analgesic requirement (OR = 0.16; 95% CI = 0 to 8.65; P = .37) and adverse events (OR = 8.50; 95% CI = 0.47 to 153.30; P = .15). CONCLUSIONS: Remifentanil (or fentanyl) and dexmedetomidine may have comparable analgesia for patients undergoing rhinoplasty.

The Two-Stage Folded Paramedian Forehead Flap Without Cartilage Grafts for Full Thickness Distal Nasal Defects: A Review of 35 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Full thickness defects of the ala, soft triangle, and nasal tip involving the nasal lining have traditionally been repaired with the three-stage folded paramedian forehead flap (FPFF), with a cartilage graft for support. For similar defects, the authors utilize the two-stage FPFF without cartilaginous support which provides reproducible functional and aesthetic results.  Objective: To describe the authors’ experience with the two-stage FPFF, including outcomes, complications, and design modifications to enhance functional and aesthetic success.  Methods: An IRB-approved retrospective database review of FPFF was performed at two sites. Using postoperative photographs, outcomes were assessed by blinded non-investigator dermatologist raters using a modified observer scar assessment scale. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients were reconstructed using the two-stage FPFF without cartilage grafts. Subjective assessment of scar vascularity, pigment, relief, and thickness by 3 independent reviewers yielded an overall cosmesis score of 8.4±1.9 (out of 40). CONCLUSION: The two-stage FPFF without cartilage grafts is a reliable, cosmetically elegant repair that can provide optimal functional and aesthetic results for complex unilateral distal nose defects.J Drugs Dermatol. 2024;23(4): doi:10.36849/JDD.7358.

Decision Making in Nasal Reconstruction: When to Use the Forehead Flap?

In this review, the paramedian forehead flap indications and uses are reviewed, specifically examining clinical situations where patient selection is important. In these settings, a preoperative discussion with a patient regarding surgical expectations and goals in the setting of their defect is paramount. The authors review the literature regarding the psychosocial aspects of major nasal reconstruction and review preoperative discussion points that are key to a well-informed patient and improved patient satisfaction through the nasal reconstructive process.

Nasal Reconstruction of Large Defects Without a Forehead Flap.

Defects over 2.0 to 2.5 cm may often require repair with a multistaged forehead flap. However, in some such defects, other options may be available. In this article, the author will review some of these options.

Implications of Malignancy, Radiation, and Timing of Major Nasal Reconstruction.

Owing to the complex, multilayered anatomy of the nose in the central face, major nasal reconstruction can pose a significant challenge for reconstructive surgeons. It is the responsibility of reconstructive surgeons to have an understanding of the most common cutaneous malignancies and excisional techniques that may lead to complex nasal defects. The purpose of this article is to discuss these malignancies, excisional techniques, and impacts of radiation on tissue that has implications for reconstructive surgeons.

Nasal Lining Reconstruction with Prelaminated Forehead Flap.

A successful nasal reconstruction relies heavily on a stable internal lining. Larger defects pose unique challenges for internal lining reconstruction as obtaining tissue of adequate size while maintaining airway patency is difficult. The prelamination technique uses a staged skin graft to the paramedian forehead flap prior to transfer. As such, a composite flap can be later transferred to reconstruct internal and external nasal defects concomitantly. This article reviews the current background, techniques, and clinical considerations in the use of the prelaminated forehead flap for nasal lining reconstruction in partial to total nasal defects.

Total Nasal Reconstruction: Advances in Free Tissue Transfer for Internal Lining and Structural Support.

Total nasal reconstruction is a complex challenge due to the need to establish new internal lining, internal structural support, and external skin covering that is both functional and esthetic. The medial femoral condyle corticoperiosteal free flap represents an innovative option for restoration internal structure and internal nasal lining. When used in conjunction with a paramedian forehead flap, acceptable results in both function and esthetics can be achieved.

Structural Support for Large to Total Nasal Reconstruction.

When large defects of the nose are present, it is imperative to address all 3 layers: the external skin envelope, the osteocartilaginous support, and the inner mucosal lining. The middle structural framework is the primary factor in determining the overall shape of the nose, in addition to facilitating a functional and patent airway. As such, its reconstruction must be robust enough to provide lasting osteocartilaginous support while minimizing disfiguring bulk. The goal is replacement of missing tissue with grafts of similar strength, size, and shape. This article will review approaches to the reconstruction of structural support in large nasal defects.

Nuances in Forehead Flap Reconstruction for Large Nasal Defects.

The forehead flap is a time-tested and robust resurfacing flap used for nasal reconstruction. Owing to its excellent color and texture match, acceptable donor site morbidity, and robust and independent blood supply that can support both structural and internal lining grafts, this flap remains the workhorse flap for resurfacing large nasal defects. Various nuances of this technique relating to defect and template preparation, flap design, flap elevation, flap inset, donor site closure, and pedicle division are discussed in this article. These nuances are the guiding principles for improved outcomes using a forehead flap for the reconstruction of large nasal defects.

Nasal Lining Reconstruction with Loco-regional Flaps.

The reliability of local intranasal flaps speaks to the robust vascularity of the nose, which these flaps are based on. The goals for lining replacement, as in any other area of head and neck reconstruction, is to use tissue that best matches the qualities of what is being replaced. The goal of this review is to describe the extent to which local tissues can be used and when to consider regional flaps when the extent of a local flap will not provide enough coverage.

Reconstruction of Large Composite Defects Extending Beyond the Nose.

Nasal reconstruction remains one of the most challenging surgeries for facial plastic and reconstructive surgeons. The addition of defects extending beyond the nose adds a layer of complexity to an already technically demanding surgery. This article will focus on the management of composite defects extending beyond the boundaries of the nose. Surgeons need to have a variety of techniques at their disposal. These complex defects often require multiple local flaps, multiple stages, and, in select cases, free tissue transfer.

Revision Nasal Reconstruction After Previous Forehead Flap.

Reconstructing the nose poses considerable challenges, even for the most skilled surgeons. Significant nasal reconstructions often require later revisions to address persistent issues in both form and function, and it is crucial to discuss this possibility with the patient before embarking on the reconstructive process. Minor revisions can often be managed by making direct incisions between nasal subunits, coupled with soft tissue sculpting or the use of structural grafts for augmentation. When minor adjustments prove insufficient, the initial reconstruction may need to be entirely revised with a second forehead flap.

Changes in patient-reported satisfaction and quality-of-life 6 months after rhinoplasty.

BACKGROUND: Rhinoplasty is a challenging and demanding procedure in plastic surgery. Surgical success, patient satisfaction, and improved quality-of-life are important outcomes. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate patient-reported satisfaction with appearance, treatment, and decision outcomes as well as quality-of-life after rhinoplasty using validated questionnaires. The role of patient demographics on outcomes was also studied. METHODS: Patients who underwent a primary rhinoplasty were selected for this cohort study. Patient-reported satisfaction with appearance, treatment, and decision as well as quality-of-life were evaluated with the Utrecht Questionnaire and FACE-Q at intake and 6 months postoperatively. RESULTS: Overall, 380 patients were included. Patients reported a more positive subjective perception of nasal appearance (VAS score) at 6 months post-surgery compared with preoperative scores (7.9 ± 1.6 vs 3.2 ± 1.4, p < 0.05). Furthermore, higher quality-of-life and body image scores were observed at 6 months postoperatively compared with preoperative scores (7.7 ± 3.5 vs 15.2 ± 4.4, p < 0.05). Patients reported high satisfaction with treatment outcome (70.3 ± 23.4) as well as with their decision to undergo surgery (75.9 ± 23.4) on a scale of 0-100 at 6 months postoperatively. Patients reached similar postoperative scores regardless of their intake scores. Patients ≥30 years and patients with a history of cosmetic surgery were less satisfied postoperatively. CONCLUSION: Despite differences in appearance satisfaction at intake, most patients showed greater satisfaction with appearance, treatment, and decision outcomes as well as quality-of-life 6 months postoperatively. However, older age and a history of cosmetic surgery influenced these outcomes negatively. These factors should be considered during preoperative management of outcome expectations.

The effect of dexmedetomidine, remifentanil and metoral in reducing patient bleeding during rhinoplasty surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Rhinoplasty is one of the most common surgeries in the ENT department. Rhinoplasty hemorrhage is one of the complications that different strategies have been used to reduce it. Reduction of bleeding reduces the risk of complications such as hemolytic and non-hemolytic reactions, acute lung damage, viral and bacterial infections, hypothermia and coagulation disorders. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the effect of dexmedetomidine, remifentanil and metoral in reducing patient bleeding during rhinoplasty surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This randomized, double-blind trial was performed on rhinoplasty patients. Rhinoplasty candidates who had the inclusion and exclusion criteria were divided into three groups of remifentanil, metoral and dexmedetomidine according to the random number table. Then 0.5 mg/kg/h of dexmedetomidine in the first group was administered, followed by 100-150 kg/h remifentanil in the second group and 50 mg metoral in the third group. Mean blood pressure, heart rate, mean bleeding and surgeon satisfaction were recorded in designed form. Data were analyzed by Spss-22 software. RESULTS: The mean blood pressure of patients in remifentanil group was lower than the other two groups (P = 0.03). In all three times during surgery, recovery and overall time, the amount of bleeding in the remifentanil group was found to be less than the other two groups. Furthermore, the rate of bleeding in the dexmedetomidine group was found to be less than the metoral group (P = 0.03, P = 0.02). The surgeon's satisfaction score in the remifentanil group was higher than the other two groups. Satisfaction score was higher in dexmedetomidine group than metoral group (P = 0.03). The recovery time in the metoral group was shorter than the other two groups (P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Remifentanil caused a good and appropriate reduction of blood pressure in rhinoplasty surgery, causing less bleeding and higher satisfaction.

Rinoplastia secundaria: infección nasal en el postoperatorio / Secondary rhinoplasty: postoperative nasal infection

La rinoplastia es una de las intervenciones más comunes en cirugía plástica. Se opera aquí una rinoplastia secundaria por vía abierta injertando los alares y la punta con cartílagos auriculares, mientras el tabique cartilaginoso fue usado para los spreader grafts. Se describe aquí una infección posoperatoria de su punta nasal. Al 9no día de su posoperatorio comienza con la punta nasal congestiva y levemente inflamada. Se medica con una crema con antibióticos, pero el día 14 aparece con la punta nasal muy inflamada y con colección. Cuando en el consultorio el cirujano la ve, como cualquier absceso, decide realizarle drenaje con un trocar 18G, 3 miniincisiones en la piel debajo de la punta nasal, de la que drena un líquido amarronado. Luego con el mismo trocar se realiza un lavado dentro de la cavidad con rifampicina solución. Se medica con trimetoprima-sulfametoxazol (Bactrimforte®) 2 comp/día. Al otro día se observa una notable mejoría. Se continuó con lavado diario durante 4 días con el mismo antibiótico evolucionando rápidamente bien. El Bactrim se lo continúa por 20 días. Al mes la punta nasal está muy bien, deshinchada con cicatrices apenas visibles. A los cuatro meses, la punta está muy blanda, las alas nasales y las narinas normales, la punta con buena proyección igual que el dorso con los spreader graft.

Rhinoplasty is one of the most common interventions in plastic surgery. A secondary open rhinoplasty was carried out grafting the allae and the tip of the nose with conchae cartilage, while the septum was used for spreader grafts. We are here describing this post operatory with a tip of the nose infection.In the control, at the 9th postoperative day, the nasal tip began to be congested and at the 14th post op day the patient showed a clear inflammatory collection. In the office, the surgeon decided to evacuate it with three punctureslike little incisions at the inferior part of the skin tip with a trocar 18G. Through them, drained brownish purulent secretion. With the same trocar, rifampicin solution was injected through these little incisions, like washing the subdermal area. It was medicated with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (Bactrim forte®) 2 tablets/day. The following day, there was a clear improvement in the congestion and erythema of the nose. This procedure of washing was repeated for four days. There was a quick evolution of the inflammatory process and 20 more days, there was no sign of the infection. Four months later, the tip of the nose was soft and the result was considered optimal by the patient and doctors.