Rhinoplasty approaches : Closed versus Semi open : A comparative study / Mohamed Abdelmottaleb Mohamed ; Supervised Nabil Galal Mohamed Zeid , Mahmoud Elsayed Elfouly , Ahmed Ahmed Kamel

By:

Mohamed Abdelmottaleb Mohamed

Contributor(s):

Material type: Text

TextLanguage: English Publication details: Cairo : Mohamed Abdelmottaleb Mohamed , 2016Description: 100 P. : charts , facsimiles ; 25cmOther title:

دراسة مقارنة بين تجميل الأنف بالطريقة المغلقة مقابل الطريقة الشبه مفتوحة [Added title page title]

Subject(s):

Available additional physical forms:

Issued also as CD

Dissertation note: Thesis (Ph.D.) - Cairo University - Faculty of Medicine - Department of E.N.T Summary: Background: The 2open3 (external) and 2closed3 (endonasal) rhinoplasty approaches remain a subject for debate (Burke and Cook, 2000). Semi-open approach was proposed by Inchingolo et al. in 2012 with the advantages of the open technique without division of the columella. Patients and Methods: A prospective study was conducted. Thirty patients were divided into two groups. In group A 15 patients underwent rhinoplasty through endonasal approach while in group B 15 patients were subjected to rhinoplasty with semi- open approach. Parameters used for evaluation were taken intraoperatively, one week and three months postoperatively. Results: Operative time and tip accessibility were more in group B than group A with a high statistical significance. Postoperative edema was more with group B than group A with significant difference in the immediate postoperative period. Conclusion: Semi-open approach shows better tip accessibility than the ordinary closed approach with fewer incisions than tip delivery technique and with no need for columellar division as in open approach. However, it has longer operative time with more postoperative edema than the closed approach. Therefore, the best use for this approach is for cases where tip modification is needed especially if concomitant nasal dorsum modification is also needed

Tags from this library: No tags from this library for this title. Log in to add tags.

Average rating: 0.0 (0 votes)

Holdings
Item type	Current library	Home library	Call number	Copy number	Status	Date due	Barcode
Thesis	قاعة الرسائل الجامعية - الدور الاول	المكتبة المركزبة الجديدة - جامعة القاهرة	Cai01.11.12.Ph.D.2016.Mo.R (Browse shelf(Opens below))		Not for loan		01010110070512000
CD - Rom	مخـــزن الرســائل الجـــامعية - البدروم	المكتبة المركزبة الجديدة - جامعة القاهرة	Cai01.11.12.Ph.D.2016.Mo.R (Browse shelf(Opens below))	70512.CD	Not for loan		01020110070512000

Thesis (Ph.D.) - Cairo University - Faculty of Medicine - Department of E.N.T

Background: The 2open3 (external) and 2closed3 (endonasal) rhinoplasty approaches remain a subject for debate (Burke and Cook, 2000). Semi-open approach was proposed by Inchingolo et al. in 2012 with the advantages of the open technique without division of the columella. Patients and Methods: A prospective study was conducted. Thirty patients were divided into two groups. In group A 15 patients underwent rhinoplasty through endonasal approach while in group B 15 patients were subjected to rhinoplasty with semi- open approach. Parameters used for evaluation were taken intraoperatively, one week and three months postoperatively. Results: Operative time and tip accessibility were more in group B than group A with a high statistical significance. Postoperative edema was more with group B than group A with significant difference in the immediate postoperative period. Conclusion: Semi-open approach shows better tip accessibility than the ordinary closed approach with fewer incisions than tip delivery technique and with no need for columellar division as in open approach. However, it has longer operative time with more postoperative edema than the closed approach. Therefore, the best use for this approach is for cases where tip modification is needed especially if concomitant nasal dorsum modification is also needed

Issued also as CD

There are no comments on this title.

to post a comment.