ABSTRACT
Resumo Introdução: O enxerto de extensão caudal é geralmente um enxerto de cartilagem que se sobrepõe à margem caudal do septo nasal. Uma combinação do enxerto de extensão caudal e a técnica de tongue-in-groove é usada para estabilizar a base nasal, definir a projeção da ponta e refinar a relação alar-columelar. Objetivo: Apresentar algumas novas modificações na colocação dos enxertos de extensão caudal na rinoplastia. Método: Revisão retrospectiva de um banco de dados prospectivamente coletado de 965 pacientes que se submeteram a rinosseptoplastia de junho de 2011 a julho de 2015. Desses, 457 pacientes necessitaram de enxerto de extensão caudal e foram incluídos no estudo. O seguimento mínimo foi de 13,2 meses, com tempo médio de seguimento de 17,4 meses. Resultados: Na maioria dos casos, a comparação das fotografias antes e após a cirurgia foi satisfatória e apresentou melhora do contorno. Pequenas deformidades foram detectadas em 41 pacientes e 11 pacientes necessitaram de cirurgia de revisão. Conclusão: Com essas modificações, o cirurgião pode usar o enxerto de extensão caudal mesmo em desvios angulares do septo caudal. Vários métodos têm sido propostos para correção do desvio septo-caudal.
Subject(s)
Rhinoplasty , Nose Deformities, Acquired , Cartilage/transplantation , Retrospective Studies , Treatment Outcome , Nasal Septum/surgeryABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The caudal extension graft is usually a cartilage graft that overlaps the caudal margin of the nasal septum. A combination of the caudal extension graft and the tongue-in-groove technique is used to stabilize the nasal base, set tip projection, and refine the alar-columellar relationship. OBJECTIVES: In this study we present some new modifications to the placement of caudal extension grafts in rhinoplasty. METHODS: This study is a retrospective review of a prospectively collected database of 965 patients who underwent septorhinoplasty from June 2011 to July 2015. Of these, 457 patients required a caudal extension graft and were included in the study. Minimum follow-up was 13.2 months with a mean follow-up time of 17.4 months. RESULTS: In most cases, comparison of photographs before and after surgery were satisfactory and showed improved contour. Minor deformity was detected in 41 patients and 11 patients needed revision surgery. CONCLUSION: With these modifications the surgeon can employ the caudal extension graft even in angulated caudal septal deviations. A variety of methods have been proposed for correction of caudal nasal deviation.
Subject(s)
Nose Deformities, Acquired , Rhinoplasty , Cartilage/transplantation , Humans , Nasal Septum/surgery , Retrospective Studies , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of azithromycin vs. fluticasone in treatment of adenotonsillar hypertrophy (AH). METHODS: In a clinical trial, 39 AH patients were selected using a convenient time-based sequential sampling method. The subjects were randomized into two treatment groups. Patients in group A (fluticasone) and B (azithromycin) were respectively treated with fluticasone spray and azithromycin suspension for a 6-week period. Data regarding the grade of obstruction (based on tonsillar size), level of adenotonsillar hypertrophy, and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) symptoms (including mouth breathing, snoring, hyponasal speech, and sleep apnea) were collected by a self-administrated questionnaire before treatment, as well as 1 week and 8 weeks after treatment. RESULTS: Twenty AH patients in group A and 19 AH patients in group B were studied. AH related symptoms, including mouth breathing, snoring, hyponasal speech and sleep apnea, improved significantly in both groups (p < 0.05). We also found a statistically significant reduced grade of obstruction among patients in both groups. However, fluticasone was not effective on adenotonsillar hypertrophy. One week after treatment, outcomes related to apnea and hyponasal speech were better in group B than group A. Decreases in mouth breathing and snoring were not significantly different between group A and B. CONCLUSIONS: It could explain that though both of the improved and mentioned symptoms comparing within initial status, Azithromycin seems to be more effective than fluticasone in improving AH-related symptoms. Short term efficacy of the antibiotic is much significant than its long term effect.
