Nasal Reconstruction with Titanium Mesh

Rodríguez-Prieto, Manuel Ángel; Alonso-Alonso, Tirso; Sánchez‐Sambucety, Pedro

doi:10.1111/j.1524-4725.2008.34425.x

Cited by 14 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Undesirable effects that might be expected include material extrusion, prosthesis infection, interference with radiological imaging, 4 dosimetry difficulties and risk of radionecrosis if adjuvant radiation is required. 5,6 We have had experience with seven patients, the five patients described above and other two patients with subtotal nasal prosthesis, 7 and we have not observed any complication in follow-up over periods ranging from 5 to 24 months. Two weeks after surgery we observed that the mesh was perfectly integrated in the tissues; this biocompatibility has already been reported in other publications.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 74%

Partial nasal reconstruction with titanium mesh: report of five cases

Rodríguez-Prieto¹,

Alonso-Alonso²,

Sánchez‐Sambucety³

2009

British Journal of Dermatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The nasal pyramid is frequently affected by nonmelanoma skin cancer. Sometimes the aggressiveness of tumours entails the extirpation of the mucosa, the cartilage, and the nasal skin. Reconstruction of the cartilaginous portion can be a surgical challenge. We demonstrate that titanium mesh can be an effective substitute for the cartilaginous portion of the nose in nasal reconstruction. We present five patients with nasal basal cell carcinoma who were treated by Mohs micrographic surgery. The partial loss of the cartilaginous structure was replaced by a 0.1 mm fenestrated titanium mesh. We have not observed any rejection or other complication in any of our patients. Good functional and aesthetic results have been obtained. Because of its biocompatibility, titanium mesh is a useful substitute for nasal cartilage. It avoids harvesting natural cartilage, reduces the risk of graft necrosis, and prevents morbidity in the donor area.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 74%

Partial nasal reconstruction with titanium mesh: report of five cases

Rodríguez-Prieto¹,

Alonso-Alonso²,

Sánchez‐Sambucety³

2009

British Journal of Dermatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our group presented the first cases in which titanium mesh was used to repair full‐thickness nasal defects and total nasal defects. Postoperative results were excellent both functionally and aesthetically . Nevertheless there was a complete lack in the literature of a long‐term follow‐up that ensured the safety of this procedure.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Titanium mesh in reconstructive surgery of the nasal pyramid. Follow‐up of our 11 initial cases

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…16,17 Titanium mesh, in particular, has been used in several prior studies, generally when covered with a vascularized internal lining. 15,[18][19][20][21][22] Most authors describe internal coverage of titanium mesh with cutaneous or mucosal flaps. 19 Otero-Rivas et al 18 reviewed 11 patients who underwent titanium mesh reconstruction for full-thickness defects including two patients with total nasal defects with at least a 3-year followup.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Titanium Mesh Nasal Repair without Nasal Lining

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this study was to describe outcomes for patients who underwent titanium mesh reconstruction of full-thickness nasal defects without internal lining repair. This is a retrospective cohort study. Patients with through-and-through nasal defects were identified at a single academic institution between 2008 and 2016. Nasal reconstruction was performed with either titanium mesh and external skin reconstruction without repair of the intranasal lining or traditional three-layer closure. Five patients underwent titanium mesh reconstruction and 11 underwent traditional three-layer repair. Median follow-up was 11 months (range, 2-66 months). The only significant difference between groups was older age in patients undergoing titanium reconstruction (mean, 81 vs. 63 years; difference of 18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4-32 years). Defect extent including overall size and structures removed was similar between groups ( > 0.05). Paramedian forehead flap was the most common external reconstruction in both groups (100% for titanium mesh and 73% for three-layer closure). Time under anesthesia was significantly shorter for titanium mesh reconstruction (median, 119 vs. 314 minutes; difference of 195; 95% CI, 45-237). Estimated blood loss and length of hospital stay were similar between groups ( > 0.05). Complication rates were substantial although not significantly different, 40 and 36% in titanium and three-layer reconstruction, respectively ( > 0.05). All patients with complications after titanium reconstruction had prior or postoperative radiotherapy. Titanium mesh reconstruction of through-and-through nasal defects can successfully be performed without reconstruction of the intranasal lining, significantly decreasing operative times. This reconstructive technique may not be suitable for patients who undergo radiotherapy.

show abstract

Nasal Reconstruction with Titanium Mesh

Cited by 14 publications

References 10 publications

Partial nasal reconstruction with titanium mesh: report of five cases

Partial nasal reconstruction with titanium mesh: report of five cases

Titanium mesh in reconstructive surgery of the nasal pyramid. Follow‐up of our 11 initial cases

Titanium Mesh Nasal Repair without Nasal Lining

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About