Nasal Reconstruction

A Simplified Approach Based on 419 Operated Cases

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

14 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this review is to examine a single surgeon’s 10-year experience with nose defects and offer a simplified approach for nasal reconstruction to close most nasal defects following Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS).

Patients and Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed on patients undergoing repair of MMS defects of the nose over a 10-year period. Data collected included patients’ age and sex, anatomic location of the defect, type of reconstruction, and number of operations required.

Results: A total of 419 patients were included in this study. The most common location for nasal reconstruction was the nasal dorsum and sidewalls (66.35 %). Complications mainly related to reconstruction of defects of the tip ± ala (n = 31), followed by the ala (n = 15) and the dorsum and sidewalls (n = 13). Bulkiness of the flap used (n = 32) and hypertrophic scar (n = 13) were the most common complications. The bilobed flap was the most commonly used flap (n = 145), followed by nasolabial flap (n = 69), FTSGs (n = 63), forehead flap (n = 62), and dorsal glabellar flap (n = 44).

Conclusions: In this article, a simplified approach for nasal defects reconstruction is presented, which is based on commonly performed local flaps and skin grafting. This algorithm can be useful for the novice plastic surgeons in planning a reconstructive strategy that will be efficient, easy to perform, and produces an acceptable esthetic and functional outcome.

Level of Evidence IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors http://www.springer.com/00266.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)91-99
Number of pages9
JournalAesthetic Plastic Surgery
Volume39
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2015

Fingerprint

Nose
Mohs Surgery
Hypertrophic Cicatrix
Skin Transplantation
Forehead
Evidence-Based Medicine
Esthetics

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Surgery

Cite this

Nasal Reconstruction : A Simplified Approach Based on 419 Operated Cases. / Konofaos, Petros; Alvarez, Sonia; McKinnie, J. E.; Wallace, Robert.

In: Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, Vol. 39, No. 1, 01.01.2015, p. 91-99.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{e0325d1f9fae4d2e92ea4f2c1ee870d2,
title = "Nasal Reconstruction: A Simplified Approach Based on 419 Operated Cases",
abstract = "Background: The purpose of this review is to examine a single surgeon’s 10-year experience with nose defects and offer a simplified approach for nasal reconstruction to close most nasal defects following Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS).Patients and Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed on patients undergoing repair of MMS defects of the nose over a 10-year period. Data collected included patients’ age and sex, anatomic location of the defect, type of reconstruction, and number of operations required.Results: A total of 419 patients were included in this study. The most common location for nasal reconstruction was the nasal dorsum and sidewalls (66.35 {\%}). Complications mainly related to reconstruction of defects of the tip ± ala (n = 31), followed by the ala (n = 15) and the dorsum and sidewalls (n = 13). Bulkiness of the flap used (n = 32) and hypertrophic scar (n = 13) were the most common complications. The bilobed flap was the most commonly used flap (n = 145), followed by nasolabial flap (n = 69), FTSGs (n = 63), forehead flap (n = 62), and dorsal glabellar flap (n = 44).Conclusions: In this article, a simplified approach for nasal defects reconstruction is presented, which is based on commonly performed local flaps and skin grafting. This algorithm can be useful for the novice plastic surgeons in planning a reconstructive strategy that will be efficient, easy to perform, and produces an acceptable esthetic and functional outcome.Level of Evidence IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors http://www.springer.com/00266.",
author = "Petros Konofaos and Sonia Alvarez and McKinnie, {J. E.} and Robert Wallace",
year = "2015",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s00266-014-0417-0",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "39",
pages = "91--99",
journal = "Aesthetic Plastic Surgery",
issn = "0364-216X",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Nasal Reconstruction

T2 - A Simplified Approach Based on 419 Operated Cases

AU - Konofaos, Petros

AU - Alvarez, Sonia

AU - McKinnie, J. E.

AU - Wallace, Robert

PY - 2015/1/1

Y1 - 2015/1/1

N2 - Background: The purpose of this review is to examine a single surgeon’s 10-year experience with nose defects and offer a simplified approach for nasal reconstruction to close most nasal defects following Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS).Patients and Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed on patients undergoing repair of MMS defects of the nose over a 10-year period. Data collected included patients’ age and sex, anatomic location of the defect, type of reconstruction, and number of operations required.Results: A total of 419 patients were included in this study. The most common location for nasal reconstruction was the nasal dorsum and sidewalls (66.35 %). Complications mainly related to reconstruction of defects of the tip ± ala (n = 31), followed by the ala (n = 15) and the dorsum and sidewalls (n = 13). Bulkiness of the flap used (n = 32) and hypertrophic scar (n = 13) were the most common complications. The bilobed flap was the most commonly used flap (n = 145), followed by nasolabial flap (n = 69), FTSGs (n = 63), forehead flap (n = 62), and dorsal glabellar flap (n = 44).Conclusions: In this article, a simplified approach for nasal defects reconstruction is presented, which is based on commonly performed local flaps and skin grafting. This algorithm can be useful for the novice plastic surgeons in planning a reconstructive strategy that will be efficient, easy to perform, and produces an acceptable esthetic and functional outcome.Level of Evidence IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors http://www.springer.com/00266.

AB - Background: The purpose of this review is to examine a single surgeon’s 10-year experience with nose defects and offer a simplified approach for nasal reconstruction to close most nasal defects following Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS).Patients and Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed on patients undergoing repair of MMS defects of the nose over a 10-year period. Data collected included patients’ age and sex, anatomic location of the defect, type of reconstruction, and number of operations required.Results: A total of 419 patients were included in this study. The most common location for nasal reconstruction was the nasal dorsum and sidewalls (66.35 %). Complications mainly related to reconstruction of defects of the tip ± ala (n = 31), followed by the ala (n = 15) and the dorsum and sidewalls (n = 13). Bulkiness of the flap used (n = 32) and hypertrophic scar (n = 13) were the most common complications. The bilobed flap was the most commonly used flap (n = 145), followed by nasolabial flap (n = 69), FTSGs (n = 63), forehead flap (n = 62), and dorsal glabellar flap (n = 44).Conclusions: In this article, a simplified approach for nasal defects reconstruction is presented, which is based on commonly performed local flaps and skin grafting. This algorithm can be useful for the novice plastic surgeons in planning a reconstructive strategy that will be efficient, easy to perform, and produces an acceptable esthetic and functional outcome.Level of Evidence IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors http://www.springer.com/00266.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84943588798&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84943588798&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00266-014-0417-0

DO - 10.1007/s00266-014-0417-0

M3 - Article

VL - 39

SP - 91

EP - 99

JO - Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

JF - Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

SN - 0364-216X

IS - 1

ER -