Nasal airway function after Le Fort I osteotomy with maxillary impaction: A prospective study using the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation scale

Background@#This study evaluated changes in nasal airway function following Le Fort I osteotomy with maxillary impaction according to the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) scale. @*Methods@#This cohort study included 13 patients who underwent Le Fort I osteotomy with maxillary impaction. Nasal airway function was evaluated based on the NOSE scale preoperatively and at 3 months postoperatively. The change in the NOSE score was calculated as the preoperative score minus the postoperative score. If the normality assumptions for changes in the NOSE score were not met, a nonparametric test (the Wilcoxon signed-rank test) was used. Differences in NOSE score changes according to patient characteristics and surgical factors were evaluated using the Kruskal-Wallis test and the Mann-Whitney test. @*Results@#Patients ranged in age from 18 to 29 years (mean±standard deviation [SD], 23.00±3.87 years). Three were men and 10 were women. Eleven patients (84%) had an acquired dentofacial deformity with skeletal class III malocclusion. The preoperative NOSE scores ranged from 40 to 90 (mean±SD, 68.92±16.68), and the postoperative NOSE scores ranged from 25 to 80 (53.84±18.83). The cohort as a whole showed significant improvement in nasal airway function following maxillary impaction (P=0.028). Eleven patients (84%) had either improved (n=8) or unchanged (n=3) postoperative NOSE scores. However, nasal airway function deteriorated in two patients. Patient characteristics and surgical factors were not correlated with preoperative or postoperative NOSE scores. @*Conclusions@#Nasal airway function as evaluated using the NOSE scale improved after maxillary impaction.

Intraoperative blood loss and surgical time according to the direction of maxillary movement

Background@#Excessive bleeding is one of the most severe complications of orthognathic surgery (OGS). This study investigated the associations of intraoperative blood loss and surgical time with the direction of maxillary movement. @*Methods@#This retrospective study involved patients who underwent OGS from October 2017 to February 2020. They were classified based on whether maxillary setback was performed into groups A1 and B1, respectively. Relative blood loss (RBL, %) was used as an indicator to compare intraoperative blood loss between the two groups. The surgical time of the two groups was also measured. Subsequently, the patients were reclassified based on whether posterior impaction of the maxilla was performed into groups A2 and B2, respectively. RBL and surgical time were measured in the two groups. Simple linear and multiple regression analyses were performed. P-values <0.05 were considered to indicate statistical significance. @*Results@#Eighteen patients were included. The RBL and surgical time for the groups were: A1, 13.15%±5.99% and 194.37±42.04 minutes; B1, 12.41%±1.89% and 196.50±46.07 minutes; A2, 13.94%±3.82% and 201.00±39.70 minutes; and B2, 9.61%±3.27% and 188.84±38.63 minutes, respectively. Only RBL showed a statistically significant difference between the two groups (A2 and B2, P=0.04). @*Conclusions@#Unlike maxillary setback, posterior impaction of the maxilla showed a significant association with RBL during surgery. When performing posterior impaction of the maxilla, clinicians need to pay particular attention to surgery and postoperative care.

For Better Fat Graft Outcome in Soft Tissue Augmentation: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND: Autologous fat grafts are widely used in plastic surgery, but they have the disadvantage of unpredictability due to variable resorption. This meta-analysis examined the literature on the survival rate of autologous fat grafts using objective markers, and investigated the factors that affected the survival rate. METHODS: The reviewers searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases from January 2001 to December 2017. A meta-analysis was performed to estimate fat graft survival and to identify variables that influenced the survival rate. RESULTS: A total of 27 studies (1,066 cases) were included in the meta-analysis. The mean survival rate of grafted fat was 56.5%. The survival rate was significantly higher for cell-assisted lipotransfer (CAL) than for non-CAL (62% vs. 53.4%; P=0.015). The survival rate for procedures performed to correct lipoatrophy was higher than that of procedures performed for other purposes (64.6%; P=0.014), and was significantly higher in patients who underwent breast pre-expansion using the BRAVA device (66.2% vs. 50.35%; P=0.001). There were no significant differences in the survival rate according to the recipient site, harvesting method, or refinement method. CONCLUSIONS: Fat transplantation showed a varying survival rate, with an average of 56%. In patients who underwent CAL or breast pre-expansion with the BRAVA device, the survival rate of transplanted fat was higher than in their counterparts, supporting the use of these techniques in fat transplantation.