Safety of Alloplastic Materials in Rhinoplasty

Loyo, Myriam; Ishii, Lisa E.

doi:10.1001/jamafacial.2013.787

Cited by 17 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In cases of infection, alloplastic implants frequently require removal whereas antibiotics are often sufficient to save autologous implants, consistent with reported higher rates of removal with alloplastic implants . Additionally, host–implant interactions seen with alloplastic materials may lead to more significant deformity of the soft tissue envelope . Liang et al concluded that when the severity of long‐term complications is factored in, ACC is recommended above alloplastic implants despite higher complication rates …”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 75%

“…Three alloplastic materials have been widely used in modern rhinoplasty‐silicone (Silastic, Dow Corning Co., Midland, MI), expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE; Gore‐Tex, W.L. Gore & Associates, Flagstaff, AZ), and porous high‐density polyethylene (pHDPE; Medpor, Stryker, Kalamazoo, MI) . Silicone is a smooth, pliable rubber available in preformed implants that can be further carved to a desired shape.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most authors agree that alloplasts are safest when used in the upper two thirds of the nose. While the site of implant is inconsistently reported in the literature, multiple case series have shown significant increases in rates of infection and extrusion with both silicone and pHDPE when used as columellar strut grafts as compared to their use in dorsal augmentation …”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Over 1 million rhinoplasties are performed worldwide each year. While autologous cartilage remains the gold standard for implantable material, controversy exists regarding the role of alloplastic implants and alleged risks of infection and extrusion . Some experts avoid alloplastic implants altogether due to feared complications in unforgiving anatomy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Are Alloplastic Implants Safe in Rhinoplasty?

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 75%

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Are Alloplastic Implants Safe in Rhinoplasty?

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The prevention of infection is even more important in Asian rhinoplasty as the frequent use of alloplastic implant renders it more vulnerable to infection (Won and Jin 2010; Loyo and Ishii 2013). Although antibiotics administered pre- and post-operatively can reduce SSI rate in rhinoplasty patients (Warnke et al 2010), there is still a substantial risk of infection.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of chlorhexidine pretreatment on bacterial contamination at rhinoplasty field

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThis study investigated on bacterial contamination of the rhinoplasty field. The effect of preoperative chlorhexidine treatment on decreasing bacterial contamination in the rhinoplasty field is examined. MethodsThirty patients who underwent rhinoplasty were block randomized into a chlorhexidine, regular-soap, or control group comprising ten participants each. The chlorhexidine group was subjected to chlorhexidine showering, shampooing, and facial-cleansing 12 h prior to the operation. The regular-soap group was subjected to cleansing with regular soap, and the control group did not have any skin pretreatment. Bacterial cultures were done 12 h preoperatively from nasal cavity and perinasal skin, immediately preoperatively from perinasal skin and at 1 and 2 h intraoperatively from operation field. Culture results were compared between the three groups, according to operation time, or whether infection-prone procedure was performed.ResultsThe bacterial species and colony-forming unit numbers at preoperative nasal cavity and perinasal skin were similar. In all three groups, Coagulase-negative staphylococcus was the most common bacteria found in the rhinoplasty field. The numbers of Staphylococcus aureus and Corynebacterium decreased rapidly after preoperative chlorhexidine treatment. The infection-prone procedure was associated with increased bacterial numbers over time during the operation. In all three groups, there was no postoperative infection in a follow-up period of 6 months.ConclusionRhinoplasty is confirmed as a clean contaminated operation with skin flora consistently found in the operation field. Chlorhexidine pretreatment in rhinoplasty patients has a tendency to decrease the numbers of Staphylococcus aureus and Corynebacterium on the perinasal skin.Level of evidenceRandomized controlled trial, Level I.

show abstract

Welcome to the New JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery!

Rhee

Larrabee

2013

JAMA Facial Plast Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Safety of Alloplastic Materials in Rhinoplasty

Cited by 17 publications

References 7 publications

Are Alloplastic Implants Safe in Rhinoplasty?

Are Alloplastic Implants Safe in Rhinoplasty?

Effect of chlorhexidine pretreatment on bacterial contamination at rhinoplasty field

Welcome to the New JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery!

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About