Silicone in nasal augmentation rhinoplasty: a decade of clinical experience.
A number of materials, both biologic and alloplastic, have been used for nasal augmentation. Although biologic bone and cartilage grafts are associated with lower infection rates, they are also associated with long-term resorption and donor-site morbidity. Alloplastic materials, in particular silicone, have been associated in the literature with extrusion and infection but have the advantages of being affordable and easy to reshape with no requirement for harvesting autografts. A 10-year experience with silicone nasal augmentation documenting clinical experience, acute and long-term complications, and patient satisfaction was reviewed. All patients undergoing silicone augmentation rhinoplasty between July of 1985 and December of 1995 were reviewed. Preoperative nasal phenotype, operative data, and postoperative outcome were recorded. Long-term follow-up was undertaken using a telephone survey. There were 422 patients who underwent silicone nasal augmentation from July of 1985 to December of 1995. Only nine were men. The indications were for aesthetic nasal augmentation in 98 percent, and the majority (98 percent) were of South East Asian origin. Mean age was 26 (range 17 to 36), and 41 of the 422 patients had had previous nasal augmentation performed before presentation. Twenty-three patients (5.5 percent) had complications requiring removal of the implant within 30 days of surgery. These included displacement, prominence, hemorrhage, and excessive pressure in addition to obvious supratip deformity. On late follow-up, a further 18 patients (4.3 percent) had subsequent removal of the prosthesis. The most common reason for this was either displacement or over-prominence, more often judged by the surgeon than the patient. There were only two patients (0.5 percent) who had extrusion of the prosthesis. A total of 266 patients (63 percent) were contacted for a telephone interview. The majority of patients (84.2 percent) were satisfied with their nasal shape. Of the 42 patients (15.8 percent) who were not satisfied, 21 patients still wanted further augmentation of their nose. Photographic analysis of 198 patients showed a mean augmentation of 16.5 percent (range 4.0 to 27.5). Amount of augmentation correlated with preoperative nasal phenotype. Silicone nasal augmentation is a safe and effective procedure when used for moderate increases in nasal height. Contrary to previous reports, this series showed no associated infection. If the implant is shaped appropriately to the patient's nasal phenotype, the risk of extrusion may be reduced.
Deva
A K
AK
Department of Plastic and Maxillofacial Surgery at Liverpool Hospital, Sydney, Australia.
Merten
S
S
Chang
L
L
D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D017060:Patient Satisfaction; D011183:Postoperative Complications / Q000209:etiology / Q000601:surgery; D011475:Prosthesis Failure; D019919:Prosthesis Implantation; D012086:Reoperation; D012225:Rhinoplasty / Q000379:methods*; D012826:Silicone Elastomers; D016896:Treatment Outcome
D012826:Silicone Elastomers