Rhytidectomy Incision Techniques and Scar Outcomes: A Scoping Review.

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY
Katherine Y Liu, David W Chou, Hannah Verma, Gavneet Sehgal, Jill K Gregory, Sunder Gidumal, Solomon Husain, Theda C Kontis, Manoj T Abraham
{"title":"Rhytidectomy Incision Techniques and Scar Outcomes: A Scoping Review.","authors":"Katherine Y Liu, David W Chou, Hannah Verma, Gavneet Sehgal, Jill K Gregory, Sunder Gidumal, Solomon Husain, Theda C Kontis, Manoj T Abraham","doi":"10.1055/a-2404-1995","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Although scar outcomes in rhytidectomy are crucial to patients and surgeons alike, there is a lack of consensus on incision techniques for optimizing rhytidectomy scars. A comprehensive scoping review of the literature was performed on rhytidectomy incision techniques and associated scar outcomes.The PRISMA protocol was utilized to conduct a scoping review of the literature through MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index databases to identify articles discussing rhytidectomy incision techniques and scar outcomes.A total of 49 studies were included in this scoping review. Four themes were identified related to rhytidectomy scars within these studies: temporal incision placement, tragal incision placement, lobule management, and postauricular incision design. Techniques within each theme were described and reported scar outcomes summarized.There are many approaches to rhytidectomy incisions described in the literature, with reportedly low rates of scar complications for each of the techniques described. It cannot be elucidated which techniques are superior due to the heterogeneity of outcomes reported in the literature with significant variability in outcome measures, study design, and follow-up time. Future studies should focus on utilizing a standardized rating system to aid in objective determination of the superiority of one technique versus another. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:: Level I.</p>","PeriodicalId":12195,"journal":{"name":"Facial Plastic Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Facial Plastic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2404-1995","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Although scar outcomes in rhytidectomy are crucial to patients and surgeons alike, there is a lack of consensus on incision techniques for optimizing rhytidectomy scars. A comprehensive scoping review of the literature was performed on rhytidectomy incision techniques and associated scar outcomes.The PRISMA protocol was utilized to conduct a scoping review of the literature through MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index databases to identify articles discussing rhytidectomy incision techniques and scar outcomes.A total of 49 studies were included in this scoping review. Four themes were identified related to rhytidectomy scars within these studies: temporal incision placement, tragal incision placement, lobule management, and postauricular incision design. Techniques within each theme were described and reported scar outcomes summarized.There are many approaches to rhytidectomy incisions described in the literature, with reportedly low rates of scar complications for each of the techniques described. It cannot be elucidated which techniques are superior due to the heterogeneity of outcomes reported in the literature with significant variability in outcome measures, study design, and follow-up time. Future studies should focus on utilizing a standardized rating system to aid in objective determination of the superiority of one technique versus another. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:: Level I.

风湿性关节炎切除术切口技术与疤痕效果:范围综述。
尽管流式皮瓣切除术的疤痕效果对患者和外科医生都至关重要,但在优化流式皮瓣切除术疤痕的切口技术方面却缺乏共识。我们对有关韵线切除术切口技术及相关疤痕效果的文献进行了全面的范围性综述。利用 PRISMA 协议通过 MEDLINE、EMBASE 和科学引文索引数据库对文献进行了范围界定,以确定讨论韵线切除术切口技术和疤痕效果的文章。49 项研究被纳入了此次范围审查。在这些研究中确定了与韵线切除术疤痕相关的 4 个主题:颞切口位置、耳后切口位置、小叶管理和耳后切口设计。对每个主题中的技术进行了描述,并总结了报告的疤痕结果。文献中描述了许多韵线切除术切口的方法,据报道,每种技术的疤痕并发症发生率都很低。由于文献报道的结果不尽相同,在结果测量、研究设计和随访时间等方面存在很大差异,因此无法阐明哪种技术更优越。未来的研究应侧重于使用标准化的评级系统,以帮助客观地确定一种技术与另一种技术的优劣。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Facial Plastic Surgery
Facial Plastic Surgery 医学-外科
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
10.00%
发文量
87
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Facial Plastic Surgery is a journal that publishes topic-specific issues covering areas of aesthetic and reconstructive plastic surgery as it relates to the head, neck, and face. The journal''s scope includes issues devoted to scar revision, periorbital and mid-face rejuvenation, facial trauma, facial implants, rhinoplasty, neck reconstruction, cleft palate, face lifts, as well as various other emerging minimally invasive procedures. Authors provide a global perspective on each topic, critically evaluate recent works in the field, and apply it to clinical practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信