RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      검색결과 좁혀 보기

      선택해제

      오늘 본 자료

      • 오늘 본 자료가 없습니다.
      더보기
      • 무료
      • 기관 내 무료
      • 유료
      • KCI등재

        A systematic review of complications associated with nasal augmentation implants: expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (Gore-Tex) versus silicone

        Han Le Thuc Hoang,Michael Januszyk,J,Brian Boyd 대한미용의학회 2017 대한미용의학회지 Vol.1 No.2

        Background: Augmentation rhinoplasty has been one of the most common cosmetic procedures in Asian population. Silicone is the most widely used nasal augmentation material in Asia. However, in the past few decades, expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE, Gore-tex ?? ) has become more popular as an alternative. Objective: In this study, complications associated with each implant aresystematically reviewed. Methods: Heuristic searches of MEDLINE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library were performed using the keywords “ePTFE”, “Goretex”, “silicone”, and “rhinoplasty” to identify manuscripts for inclusion. The reference lists of these articles were systematically reviewed to further identify relevant articles. Only studies with detailed complication reports (i.e., infection, malposition) were considered. Random effects meta-analysis was performed to calculate the significance of differences in complication rates between silicone and ePTFE. Results: Eighteen studies encompassing a total of 7,759 patients were analyzed, 12 with ePTFE and 6 with silicone. Among studies in which sex was reported, 88.8% of the patients were female. 88.4% of cases in the silicone group were primary, as compared to 78% in the ePTFE group. Overall complications were 5.3% for the ePTFE group and 9.2% for silicone (p<0.05). Infection rate was similar between the two groups, 1.4% for ePTFE versus 1.9% for silicone group (p>0.05). Exposure rate was also similar, 0.7% for silicone and 1.2% for ePTFE (p>0.05). Malposition rates were significantly lower in ePTFE group compared to those receiving silicone implants (2.4% versus 6.8%, p<0.05). Conclusion: Although the gold standard graft material for rhinoplasty remains autologous tissue, implant based rhinoplasty is far more common in Asian populations. Both silicone and ePTFE have acceptable risk profiles when used in selective patients for dorsal augmentation. However, given the additional risks of capsular contracture and implant malposition associated with silicone implants, ePTFE should be considered as a first-line option for implant-based nasal augmentation.

      연관 검색어 추천

      이 검색어로 많이 본 자료

      활용도 높은 자료

      해외이동버튼