rhinoplasty.cc
Menu

Journal archive · Dorsum and hump · Complications and management · Anatomy and nasal analysis · 2022

MPRS Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg · 2022

Prevalence of complications associated with polymer-based alloplastic materials in nasal dorsal augmentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Keyhan SO, Ramezanzade S, Yazdi RG, Valipour MA, Fallahi HR, Shakiba M, Aeinehvand M.

In the archive as a landmark paper: the core sweep runs 2011–2026, and this one is here because the history of rhinoplasty rests on it · cited on alloplastic implants.

Abstract

Background: Various techniques with different grafts and implants have been proposed to establish a smooth and symmetric nasal dorsum with adequate function. Broadly, two categories of materials have been used in this regard: alloplastic implant materials and autograft materials. The aim of these meta-analyses is to explore the incidence of complications after dorsum augmentation surgery using alloplastic materials.

Materials And Methods: After duplication removal 491 papers remained that title and abstract were assessed for eligibility. Regarding the study type, 27 observational studies were included, 21 retrospective and 6 prospective case series. A total of 3803 cases were enrolled in this systematic review and meta-analysis.

Result: Twenty-seven articles reported on complications and outcomes of dorsal augmentation rhinoplasty with synthetic materials. In a random-effects model, the weighted mean percentage was 2.75% (95% CI 1.61 to 4.17%). the weighted mean percentage were 1.91% (95% CI 0.77 to 3.54%), 0.72% (95% CI 0.316 to 1.31%), and 0.78% (95% CI 0.43 to 1.24%) respectively.

Conclusion: The widely used alloplasts were expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE), high-density polyethylene, and silicone. The total rates for complications, infection, deviation, irregularity, hematoma, extrusion, and overcorrection were 2.75%, 1.91%, 0.72%, 0.70%, 0.78%, and 0.49%, respectively. The revision rate, based on the random effects model, was 6.40% with 95%CI (3.84 to 9.57).

Trial Registration: This meta-analysis was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO, registration number CRD42020209644 ).

Abstract as indexed by PubMed; the article is open access (PubMed Central).

Citation

PubMed
Journal
Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg
Year
2022
Authors
7
Type
Journal Article, Review
Access
Open access
On this site
Full abstract

Start here

What the rhinoplasty literature says on this paper's topics, cited line by line to PubMed.

Related papers

Same topic, 2022.

  1. ASJ
    2022PMID 34546291
  2. ASJ
    2022PMID 34436559Summary
  3. ASJ
    2022PMID 34864854Summary
  4. ASJO
    2022PMID 35156020Full text
  5. APS
    Aesthetic Science of Rhinoplasty: Three Principles
    Gruber RP, Holland M, Rochlin D et al.
    2022PMID 35441238Summary
  6. APS
    2022PMID 34498142Summary
  7. APS
    Closed Piezo Preservation Rhinoplasty
    Almazov I, Rovira RV, Farhadov V
    2022PMID 35169916Summary
  8. APS
    2022PMID 34590168Summary