A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Autologous vs Irradiated Homologous Costal Cartilage Grafts for Dorsal Augmentation Rhinoplasty.

Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum Pub Date : 2024-12-18 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1093/asjof/ojae122
Dinithi Liyanage, Sushanth Vayalapra, Himani Murdeshwar, Jonathan James Suresh, Hamza Usman, Elisha Bailey-Lewis, Zaira Bailón-Valdez, Ankur Khajuria
{"title":"A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Autologous vs Irradiated Homologous Costal Cartilage Grafts for Dorsal Augmentation Rhinoplasty.","authors":"Dinithi Liyanage, Sushanth Vayalapra, Himani Murdeshwar, Jonathan James Suresh, Hamza Usman, Elisha Bailey-Lewis, Zaira Bailón-Valdez, Ankur Khajuria","doi":"10.1093/asjof/ojae122","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Autologous costal cartilage (ACC) is commonly used for dorsal augmentation rhinoplasty because of its availability and strength, despite risks such as hypertrophic scarring and pneumothorax for the patient. Irradiated homologous costal cartilage (IHCC) offers an alternative, potentially mitigating these complications. Previous reviews comparing these materials have been methodologically weak. The aim of this study is to perform a robust systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the outcomes of ACC and IHCC in dorsal augmentation rhinoplasty to guide clinical decision making in nasal reconstruction. Medline, Embase, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed by 2 independent authors. The primary outcomes of interest were warping, revision rates, infection rates, and displacement. Methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation and Cochrane's ROBINS I tool, respectively. Thirty-six articles were reviewed, including 1 comparative and 35 single-arm studies (ACC: 29, IHCC: 8), encompassing 2526 patients from 13 countries. Adverse events included warping (ACC: 6%, <i>P</i> < .0001; IHCC: 6%, <i>P</i> < .0001). Resorption rates were 1% for ACC (<i>P</i> = .06) and 3% for IHCC (<i>P</i> < .0001). Revision surgery rates were similar (ACC: 4%, <i>P</i> < .001; IHCC: 4%, <i>P</i> < .001), as were infection rates (ACC: 1.8%, <i>P</i> = .03; IHCC: 1.3%, <i>P</i> = .03). Current evidence does not demonstrate the superiority of ACC or IHCC for dorsal augmentation rhinoplasty. Both grafts are viable, with the choice guided by patient and surgeon preferences. Prospective, high-quality data with standardized outcomes are needed to improve clinical decision making.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence 2 risk: </strong></p>","PeriodicalId":72118,"journal":{"name":"Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum","volume":"7 ","pages":"ojae122"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11786243/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/asjof/ojae122","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Autologous costal cartilage (ACC) is commonly used for dorsal augmentation rhinoplasty because of its availability and strength, despite risks such as hypertrophic scarring and pneumothorax for the patient. Irradiated homologous costal cartilage (IHCC) offers an alternative, potentially mitigating these complications. Previous reviews comparing these materials have been methodologically weak. The aim of this study is to perform a robust systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the outcomes of ACC and IHCC in dorsal augmentation rhinoplasty to guide clinical decision making in nasal reconstruction. Medline, Embase, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed by 2 independent authors. The primary outcomes of interest were warping, revision rates, infection rates, and displacement. Methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation and Cochrane's ROBINS I tool, respectively. Thirty-six articles were reviewed, including 1 comparative and 35 single-arm studies (ACC: 29, IHCC: 8), encompassing 2526 patients from 13 countries. Adverse events included warping (ACC: 6%, P < .0001; IHCC: 6%, P < .0001). Resorption rates were 1% for ACC (P = .06) and 3% for IHCC (P < .0001). Revision surgery rates were similar (ACC: 4%, P < .001; IHCC: 4%, P < .001), as were infection rates (ACC: 1.8%, P = .03; IHCC: 1.3%, P = .03). Current evidence does not demonstrate the superiority of ACC or IHCC for dorsal augmentation rhinoplasty. Both grafts are viable, with the choice guided by patient and surgeon preferences. Prospective, high-quality data with standardized outcomes are needed to improve clinical decision making.

Level of evidence 2 risk:

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
4 weeks
×
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