Olsoff PPJ, Ochoa GJR, Cedillo LMP, Valle ACF, Cárdenas SCM

Language: Spanish
References: 17
Page: 32-39
PDF size: 163.45 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Nasal reconstruction its a challenge for the plastic surgeon. Since the initiation of this type of procedure, it has undergone a slow transformation until reaching the complete restoration of the aesthetic contour and the function. Autologous grafts continue to be the gold standard of nasal reconstruction. Their biological compatibility is unbeatable, having the lowest risk of extrusion and infection. The major disadvantage of the autologous grafts is the morbidity of the donor site and its limited availability in secondary rhinoplasties. The alloplastic grafts lack a donor site morbidity, but they have a high rate of infection and extrusion, thus many surgeons avoid using them. At present time, medpor is the best choice for nasal reconstruction when using an alloplastic graft, due to its porosity that allows viable fibrovascular ingrowth which lowers the rates of infection and extrusion. Alloplastic materials should not be considered for all secondary rhinoplasties, but only in cases of multiple or complex rhinoplasties, when there is no autologous graft available or due to me morbidity of the donor site. A careful, precise and accurate surgical technique is required in order to avoid catastrophic complications when performed by inexpert surgeons.

REFERENCES

1. Romo T, Sclafani AP, Jacono AA. Nasal reconstruction using porous polyethylene implants. Facial Plast Surg. 2000; 16 (1): 55-61.

2. Romo T, McLaughlin LA, Levine JM, Sclafani AP. Nasal implants: Autogenous, semisynthetic, and synthetic. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 2002; 10 (2): 155-166.

3. Owens JM. Soft tissue implants and fillers. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2005; 38 (2): 361-369.

4. Cummings. Otolaryngology: Head & Neck Surgery. 4th ed.

5. Sabini P, Sclafani AP, Romo T, McCormick SA, Cocker R. Modulation of tissue in growth into porous high-density polyethylene implants with basic fibroblast growth factor and autologous blood clot. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2000; 2 (1): 27-33.

6. Niechajev I. Porous polyethylene implants for nasal reconstruction: Clinical and histologic studies. Aesthetic Plast Surg 1999; 23 (6): 395-402.

7. Pham RT, Hunter PD. Use of porous polyethylene as nasal dorsal implants in Asians. J Cosmet Laser Ther 2006; 8 (2): 102-106.

8. Berghaus A, Stelter K. Alloplastic materials in rhinoplasty. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2006; 14 (4): 270-277.

9. Oztürk S, Sengezer M, Coskun U, Zor F. An unusual complication of a Medpor implant in nasal reconstruction: A case report. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2002; 26 (6): 419-422.

10. Romo T, Sonne J, Choe KS, Sclafani AP. Revision rhinoplasty. Facial Plast Surg 2003; 19 (4): 299-307.

11. Baran CN, Tiftikcioglu YO, Baran NK. The use of alloplastic materials in secondary rhinoplasties: 32 years of clinical experience. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005; 116 (5): 1502-1516.

12. Gürlek A, Celik M, Fariz A, Ersöz-Oztü A, Eren AT, Tenekeci G. The use of high density porous polyethylene as a custom-made nasal spreader graft. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2006; 30 (1): 34-41.

13. Mendelsohn M. Straightening the crooked middle third of the nose: Using porous polyethylene extended spreader grafts. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2005; 7 (2): 74-80.

14. Copcu E, Sivrioglu N, Baytekin C, Koc B. A new approach for the salvage of unsuccessful cleft lip nose repair: application of porous polyethylene implants to the alar cartilage. Ann Plast Surg 2006; 56 (3): 349-350.

15. Ozdemir R, Kocer U, Tiftikcioglu YO, Karaaslan O, Kankaya Y, Cuzdan S, Baydar DE. Axial pattern composite prefabrication of high-density porous polyethylene: experimental and clinical research. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005; 115 (1): 183-196.

16. Becker DG, Becker SS. Reducing complications in rhinoplasty. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2006; 39 (3): 475-492.

17. Clark JM, Cook TA. Immediate reconstruction of extruded alloplastic nasal implants with irradiated homograft costal cartilage. Laryngoscope 2002; 112 (6): 968-974.