Revision Rhinoplasty in Ethnic Patients: Pollybeak Deformity and Persistent Bulbous Tip

2014 ◽  
Vol 30 (04) ◽  
pp. 477-484 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Rahimi ◽  
Oleh Slupchynskyj
Author(s):  
A. E. Sowers ◽  
E. L. Thurston

Plant stinging emergences exhibit functional similarities in that they all elicit a pain response upon contact. A stinging emergence consists of an elongated stinging cell and a multicellular pedestal (Fig. 1). A recent ultrastructural investigation of these structures has revealed the ontogeny and morphology of the stinging cells differs in representative genera in the four plant families which possess such structures. A unique feature of the stinging cell of Urtica dioica is the presence of a siliceous cell wall in the apical portion of the cell. This rigid region of the cell wall is responsible for producing the needle-like apparatus which penetrates the skin. The stinging cell differentiates the apical bulbous tip early in development and the cell continues growth by intercalary addition of non-silicified wall material until maturity.The uppermost region of the stinging cell wall is entirely composed of silica (Fig. 2, 3) and upon etching with a 3% solution of HF (5 seconds), the silica is partially removed revealing the wall consisting of individualized silica bodies (Fig. 4, 5).


2021 ◽  
pp. 014556132098394
Author(s):  
Mohamed A. Taha ◽  
Christian A. Hall ◽  
Harry E. Zylicz ◽  
William T. Barham ◽  
Margaret B. Westbrook ◽  
...  

Objective: To evaluate and compare the costal cartilage lateral crural strut graft’s (LCSG) ability to support a weak lateral crus in patients with external nasal valve dysfunction (EVD) undergoing primary versus revision functional rhinoplasty. Methods: This is a prospective cohort study of 26 patients (mean [SD]: 40.23 [6.75] years of age; 10 [38%] females) with clinically diagnosed EVD, who underwent primary versus revision functional rhinoplasty with the use of a costal cartilage LCSG (10 [38%] primary functional rhinoplasty patients and the 16 [62%] revision patients). Preoperative and 12-month postoperative subjective and objective functional measurements along with statistical analysis were performed. Results: While all baseline demographic and preoperative functional measurement scores were similar between the 2 groups, the primary cohort’s preoperative scores were higher overall. Follow-up was a mean of 14.58 months. The primary group demonstrated a greater difference in score improvement postoperatively in all categories. All patients had significantly improved visual analog scale (VAS), Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation Scale, 22-Item Sinonasal Outcome Test, and nasal peak inspiratory flow (NPIF) scores. When comparing the overall score outcome and surgical efficacy of the LCSG, both groups had near equal final score outcomes with the exception of VASL and NPIF. Conclusion: The LCSG is a viable and versatile option in the management of EVD for both primary and revision rhinoplasty patients.


Author(s):  
Gerhard Rettinger ◽  
Claudia Rudack
Keyword(s):  

2006 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 373-387 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Romo ◽  
Edward S. Kwak
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Samuel R. Auger ◽  
Anil R. Shah

AbstractThe revision rhinoplasty presents many unique challenges to the facial plastic surgeon. While many cases will require a full revision in the operating room, there are several isolated deformities which may be repaired in the office via an endonasal approach. This provides many benefits to the patient and surgeon including decreased cost, shorter recovery time, avoidance of general anesthesia, and less discomfort. It is critical to identify defects appropriate for endonasal repair, establish clear expectations with the patient, and work within one's skill set and level of experience. The surgeon who can comfortably navigate both open and endonasal techniques can offer their patients a comprehensive set of solutions for revision rhinoplasty. In this article we outline the defects amenable to this type of repair as well as technical considerations for each defect addressed. We hope it serves as a useful framework for the range of deformities the rhinoplasty surgeon may take on for in-office repair.


2021 ◽  
Vol 148 (4) ◽  
pp. 747-757 ◽  
Author(s):  
Serhat Sibar ◽  
Kemal Findikcioglu ◽  
Burak Pasinlioglu

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document