Clinical Analysis of Nasal Bone Fracture in Patients Who Have Previously Undergone Dorsal Augmentation Using Silicone Implants: A Pilot Study

Sik Namgoong, Jong Phil Yang, Seung-Kyu Han, Seong-Ho Jeong, Eun-Sang Dhong

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: There are no studies about the treatment of nasal bone fractures in patients with dorsal augmentations using silicone implants. We aimed to describe the characteristics of nasal bone fracture in patients who underwent rhinoplasty and compare the difference between closed reduction and conservative treatment of nasal bone fractures in patients with a history of rhinoplasty. Methods: Between January 2013 and June 2018, a total of 463 patients were admitted to our center for nasal bone fracture; 17 patients with nasal bone fractures who underwent rhinoplasty were included, of which, five underwent closed reduction in the nasal bone and 12 underwent conservative treatment. Three of 12 patients who were initially treated conservatively underwent a secondary rhinoplasty for esthetic improvements. All patients were classified according to fracture site and the presence of a nasal septal fracture—in accordance with the modified Murray classification—and were analyzed for the correlation between fracture type and disease course. Results: The nasal bone fracture types per computed tomography findings were unilateral (n = 13), bilateral (n = 4), septal (n = 1), and M-type (n = 1). No significant differences in fracture site (P > 0.05) and the presence of a nasal septal fracture (P > 0.05) were found between the groups. Fracture type did not significantly differ among patients who underwent closed reduction, conservative treatment without secondary rhinoplasty, and secondary rhinoplasty (P > 0.05). Conclusions: Despite risking traumatic capsular rupture, implant removal is seldom required and closed reduction is recommended if visible deviations are present; otherwise, only conservative treatment is recommended. Level of Evidence IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

Original languageEnglish
JournalAesthetic Plastic Surgery
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2019 Jan 1

Fingerprint

Nasal Bone
Bone Fractures
Silicones
Rhinoplasty
Nose
Evidence-Based Medicine
Esthetics
Rupture
Tomography
Conservative Treatment

Keywords

  • Augmentation rhinoplasty
  • Disease course
  • Nasal bone fracture
  • Silicone implant

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

@article{700b4845e5014bb9a94e65279a752490,
title = "Clinical Analysis of Nasal Bone Fracture in Patients Who Have Previously Undergone Dorsal Augmentation Using Silicone Implants: A Pilot Study",
abstract = "Background: There are no studies about the treatment of nasal bone fractures in patients with dorsal augmentations using silicone implants. We aimed to describe the characteristics of nasal bone fracture in patients who underwent rhinoplasty and compare the difference between closed reduction and conservative treatment of nasal bone fractures in patients with a history of rhinoplasty. Methods: Between January 2013 and June 2018, a total of 463 patients were admitted to our center for nasal bone fracture; 17 patients with nasal bone fractures who underwent rhinoplasty were included, of which, five underwent closed reduction in the nasal bone and 12 underwent conservative treatment. Three of 12 patients who were initially treated conservatively underwent a secondary rhinoplasty for esthetic improvements. All patients were classified according to fracture site and the presence of a nasal septal fracture—in accordance with the modified Murray classification—and were analyzed for the correlation between fracture type and disease course. Results: The nasal bone fracture types per computed tomography findings were unilateral (n = 13), bilateral (n = 4), septal (n = 1), and M-type (n = 1). No significant differences in fracture site (P > 0.05) and the presence of a nasal septal fracture (P > 0.05) were found between the groups. Fracture type did not significantly differ among patients who underwent closed reduction, conservative treatment without secondary rhinoplasty, and secondary rhinoplasty (P > 0.05). Conclusions: Despite risking traumatic capsular rupture, implant removal is seldom required and closed reduction is recommended if visible deviations are present; otherwise, only conservative treatment is recommended. Level of Evidence IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.",
keywords = "Augmentation rhinoplasty, Disease course, Nasal bone fracture, Silicone implant",
author = "Sik Namgoong and Yang, {Jong Phil} and Seung-Kyu Han and Seong-Ho Jeong and Eun-Sang Dhong",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s00266-019-01410-9",
language = "English",
journal = "Aesthetic Plastic Surgery",
issn = "0364-216X",
publisher = "Springer New York",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Clinical Analysis of Nasal Bone Fracture in Patients Who Have Previously Undergone Dorsal Augmentation Using Silicone Implants

T2 - A Pilot Study

AU - Namgoong, Sik

AU - Yang, Jong Phil

AU - Han, Seung-Kyu

AU - Jeong, Seong-Ho

AU - Dhong, Eun-Sang

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Background: There are no studies about the treatment of nasal bone fractures in patients with dorsal augmentations using silicone implants. We aimed to describe the characteristics of nasal bone fracture in patients who underwent rhinoplasty and compare the difference between closed reduction and conservative treatment of nasal bone fractures in patients with a history of rhinoplasty. Methods: Between January 2013 and June 2018, a total of 463 patients were admitted to our center for nasal bone fracture; 17 patients with nasal bone fractures who underwent rhinoplasty were included, of which, five underwent closed reduction in the nasal bone and 12 underwent conservative treatment. Three of 12 patients who were initially treated conservatively underwent a secondary rhinoplasty for esthetic improvements. All patients were classified according to fracture site and the presence of a nasal septal fracture—in accordance with the modified Murray classification—and were analyzed for the correlation between fracture type and disease course. Results: The nasal bone fracture types per computed tomography findings were unilateral (n = 13), bilateral (n = 4), septal (n = 1), and M-type (n = 1). No significant differences in fracture site (P > 0.05) and the presence of a nasal septal fracture (P > 0.05) were found between the groups. Fracture type did not significantly differ among patients who underwent closed reduction, conservative treatment without secondary rhinoplasty, and secondary rhinoplasty (P > 0.05). Conclusions: Despite risking traumatic capsular rupture, implant removal is seldom required and closed reduction is recommended if visible deviations are present; otherwise, only conservative treatment is recommended. Level of Evidence IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

AB - Background: There are no studies about the treatment of nasal bone fractures in patients with dorsal augmentations using silicone implants. We aimed to describe the characteristics of nasal bone fracture in patients who underwent rhinoplasty and compare the difference between closed reduction and conservative treatment of nasal bone fractures in patients with a history of rhinoplasty. Methods: Between January 2013 and June 2018, a total of 463 patients were admitted to our center for nasal bone fracture; 17 patients with nasal bone fractures who underwent rhinoplasty were included, of which, five underwent closed reduction in the nasal bone and 12 underwent conservative treatment. Three of 12 patients who were initially treated conservatively underwent a secondary rhinoplasty for esthetic improvements. All patients were classified according to fracture site and the presence of a nasal septal fracture—in accordance with the modified Murray classification—and were analyzed for the correlation between fracture type and disease course. Results: The nasal bone fracture types per computed tomography findings were unilateral (n = 13), bilateral (n = 4), septal (n = 1), and M-type (n = 1). No significant differences in fracture site (P > 0.05) and the presence of a nasal septal fracture (P > 0.05) were found between the groups. Fracture type did not significantly differ among patients who underwent closed reduction, conservative treatment without secondary rhinoplasty, and secondary rhinoplasty (P > 0.05). Conclusions: Despite risking traumatic capsular rupture, implant removal is seldom required and closed reduction is recommended if visible deviations are present; otherwise, only conservative treatment is recommended. Level of Evidence IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

KW - Augmentation rhinoplasty

KW - Disease course

KW - Nasal bone fracture

KW - Silicone implant

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85067071799&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85067071799&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00266-019-01410-9

DO - 10.1007/s00266-019-01410-9

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85067071799

JO - Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

JF - Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

SN - 0364-216X

ER -