Morselized Bone Graft: A Tool for Nasal Dorsum Contouring and Refinement
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Goals/Purpose The nasal dorsum is a cornerstone of rhinoplasty aesthetics, playing a vital role in achieving facial harmony and balance. Achieving a smooth, refined nasal profile remains a significant challenge, particularly in thin-skinned patients who are more susceptible to contour irregularities. Many techniques are used to address this problem, including diced cartilage, fascia, acellular dermal matrices, and silicone implants. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of using morselized bone grafts (MBG)–specifically, unused bone rasp material that is typically discarded–as a technique for contouring and refining the nasal dorsum after dorsal reduction. Methods/Technique The senior surgeon exclusively utilizes an open approach to rhinoplasty, and all cases are performed under general anesthesia. After performing a dorsal hump reduction with a bone rasp, the MBG is stored on the back table for later use in the same case. After addressing other components of the rhinoplasty procedure, attention is turned back to the nasal dorsum, wherein any contour irregularities are filled with the MBG paste. A retrospective chart review of rhinoplasty cases in the senior author's practice was conducted between January 2021 and June 2022. The inclusion criteria were cosmetic or functional rhinoplasty cases in which autologous MBG was used for dorsum refinement and contouring with a minimum of 12 months of follow-up. 953 patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in the study. Outcomes of interest included the rate of postoperative infection, defined as patients with signs of infection requiring antibiotics after completing their standard course of prophylactic antibiotics, and the rate of operative revisions. Results/Complications The mean age of our study group was 31.6 years old, with 869 female patients. 640 cases were primary rhinoplasties. The mean follow-up period was 23.5 months, with a minimum of 12 months of follow up for each patient. The rate of postoperative infection in our case series was 2.7%, with 26 patients requiring postoperative antibiotics. 17 (1.8%) patients required operative revision, among whom 4 (23.5%) patients were revision cases. There were no patients who sought revision rhinoplasty for concerns related to dorsal irregularities or contour defects. Conclusion MBG use for nasal dorsum aesthetics is a safe, convenient, and effective technique in camouflaging and concealing nasal dorsum irregularities in both primary and revision rhinoplasty. Additionally, as there is no additional equipment required and minimal operative time added when performing this technique, MBG use is an efficient alternative to other techniques for addressing dorsal aesthetics with no additional donor-site morbidity when paired with boney dorsal reduction. Future steps will involve performing a five-year follow-up on this cohort of patients to assess for long-term dorsal aesthetics following MBG use.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».