Abonnement à la biblothèque: Guest
Portail numérique Bibliothèque numérique eBooks Revues Références et comptes rendus Collections
Journal of Long-Term Effects of Medical Implants
SJR: 0.133 SNIP: 0.491 CiteScore™: 0.89

ISSN Imprimer: 1050-6934
ISSN En ligne: 1940-4379

Journal of Long-Term Effects of Medical Implants

DOI: 10.1615/JLongTermEffMedImplants.v22.i1.70
pages 65-72

Decision Making in Nasal Implantations by Autogenous, Synthetic, or Mixed Implant Units: Surgeons and Patients Needs and Satisfaction Based Protocol

Mohamed El-Shazly
Departments of Plastic Surgery & Otolaryngology, Assiut University Hospitals, Egypt
Hamza El-Shafiey
Departments of Plastic Surgery & Otolaryngology, Assiut University Hospitals, Egypt

RÉSUMÉ

Choosing the best nasal implant is an important issue that is still debated, and no implant is ideal. Hence, a protocol to help surgeons choose the best implant for a specific nasal problem is needed. Such a protocol should consider the needs of the patient and the surgeon, the best outcomes, and the satisfaction of both the patient and the surgeon. Rhinoplasties performed on 32 patients in this study involved three implant types: autogenous, synthetic, and mixed. Observational data were collected to determine the technical needs of patients and surgeons and to evaluate their respective satisfaction using an interpretive score ranging from 0 to 2. Autogenous implant was the most commonly used technique, which included filling volume deficiencies; synthetic implants were used to camouflage irregularities, to pad bony edges, or in nasal tip surgeries; and the mixed implants were used in all surgeries, including covering open roofs or fine-surface irregularities. Acceptable long-term effects and best quality of the results were 100% for mixed implant units, 87.5% for synthetic implants, and 73% for autogenous grafts. Surgeon satisfaction was greatest when patients were most satisfied (score=2), and surgeon satisfaction was significantly lower when patients were dissatisfied (in cases with complications). Choosing the best implant is difficult; many implant types are applicable for more than on purpose, and a specific implant may be more advantageous in a specific case. Considering many factors involved, an algorithm useful for choosing the appropriate implant type is presented.


Articles with similar content:

Long-Term Clinical Review (10-20 Years) after Reconstruction of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament Using the Leeds-Keio Synthetic Ligament
Journal of Long-Term Effects of Medical Implants, Vol.17, 2007, issue 1
Graham Sefton, Sameh Sidhom, Alex P. Jones
Perineal Hernias
Journal of Long-Term Effects of Medical Implants, Vol.20, 2010, issue 2
Brian R. Kann
Systematic Review of Single-Set Versus Multiple-Set Resistance-Training Randomized Controlled Trials: Implications for Rehabilitation
Critical Reviews™ in Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, Vol.18, 2006, issue 2
Daniel Hermsen, Christopher Demuth, Christopher J. Durall
Design Issues in a Non-Regulatory Trial
Journal of Long-Term Effects of Medical Implants, Vol.19, 2009, issue 3
Brad A. Petrisor, Christina Goldstein
Clinical Application of Artificial Ligament for Ankle Instability—Long-Term Follow-Up
Journal of Long-Term Effects of Medical Implants, Vol.10, 2000, issue 4
Eiichi Hiraishi, Akeo Waseda, Norio Usami, Suguru Inokuchi, Masaki Miyanaga