• Archives of Plastic Surgery
• /
• 제47권6호
• /
• pp.522-527
• /
• 2020

Nasal septoplasty is often required to correct a cosmetic deformity, which is a common reason for patients to present to a plastic surgeon. If nasal septoplasty is insufficient, a residual deformity or nasal obstruction may remain after surgery. Even if the nasal septum is corrected to an appropriate position, nasal congestion could be exacerbated if the turbinate on the other side is not also corrected. Therefore, appropriate treatment is required based on the condition of the turbinates. Herein, we survey recent trends in treatment and review previous research papers on turbinoplasty procedures that can be performed alongside nasal septoplasty.

• Archives of Plastic Surgery
• /
• 제45권4호
• /
• pp.379-383
• /
• 2018

Septoplasty/septorhinoplasty is a common ear, nose and throat procedure offered for those patients with deviated septum who are suffering from nasal obstruction and functional or cosmetic problems. Although it is a basic and simple procedure, it could lead to catastrophic complications including major skull base injuries which result in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leaks. We describe two different cases of traumatic CSF leaks following septoplasty/septorhinoplasty at two different sites. The first patient suffered a CSF leak following septoplasty and presented to Alexandria University Hospital. The leak was still active at presentation and identified as coming from a defect in the roof of the sphenoid sinus and was repaired surgically. The second patient presented 4 days after her cosmetic septorhinoplasty with a CSF leak and significant pneumocephalus. She was managed conservatively. Understanding the anatomical variations of the paranasal sinuses and implementing proper surgical techniques are crucial in preventing intracranial complications when performing either septoplasty or septorhinoplasty. A good quality computed tomography of the nose and paranasal sinuses is a valuable investigation to avoid major complications especially CSF leaks following either procedure.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제16권1호
• /
• pp.3-82
• /
• 2015

이 논문에서는 미용성형의료관계에서 설명의무의 위반과 시술상 오류로 인한 민사책임에 관한 판결(대법원 2013. 6. 13. 선고 2012다94865 판결, 서울중앙지방법원 2014. 12. 5. 선고 2013가소865646 판결)의 평석적 분석을 통해 설명의무만를 강화하여 책임귀속을 판단한 논지의 법리적 문제점을 지적하고, 다음과 같은 논점을 전개한다. 미용성형도 현행 의료법상 의료행위에 해당한다는 판례(대법원 1974. 11. 26. 선고 74도1114 전원합의체 판결)와 학계의 통용되는 견해는 공법적 관점에서만 타당하며, 적응증이 없는, 즉 질병 치료를 목적으로 하지 않는 순수한 미용성형시술은 의술적으로 신체, 건강 등에 위해를 가할 수 있는 의료법상 의료행위에 해당하지만, 민사책임법에서는 질병치료를 목적으로 하는 진료행위와 구별되어야 한다. 그리고 오늘날 의료생활에서 의료보험의 불가결성에 비추어, - 방법적으로 사회법상 개념 및 규준을 곧바로 민사책임법에 적용되는 것은 아니라는 점을 견지하면서 -, 성형시술에 대한 보험급여에 관한 독일 연방사회법원 판결(BSGE 63, 83, BSGE 72, 96, BSGE, 82, 158, BSGE 93, 252 etc.)을 소개하여 비교한다. 또한 진료계약의 법적 성질에 관한 교조적 논점과 관련하여 독일 연방법원의 판결(BGHZ 63, 306)도 비교적으로 검토한다. 소결적으로 성형의료를 (1) 신체의 물리적 기능의 침해의 교정, (2) 기형(騎形)의 교정, (3) 심인적 침해의 교정, (3) 정상적 체형(體型)의 미화(美化)로 유형적으로 분류하는 관점에서, 적응증 있는 진료계약(수단채무)에 적용하는 책임귀속법리와 달리, (4)의 유형에 해당하는 미용성형시술에는 예외적으로 도급계약의 법리 적용을 긍정적으로 재검토할 것을 제안한다.

• Archives of Plastic Surgery
• /
• 제49권5호
• /
• pp.569-579
• /
• 2022

Open and closed rhinoplasty are two main approaches to perform nasal modifications. According to current literature, there is no current consensus among plastic surgeons and otolaryngologists on which technique is preferred in terms of aesthetic result, complications, and patient satisfaction. This study uses published research to determine whether open or closed rhinoplasty leads to superior patient outcomes. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for systematic reviews were followed and a literature search was conducted in four databases based on our search strategy. Articles were then imported into COVIDENCE where they underwent primary screening and full-text review. Twenty articles were selected in this study after 243 articles were screened. There were 4 case series, 12 retrospective cohort studies, 1 prospective cohort study, 1 case-control, and 2 outcomes research. There were three cosmetic studies, eight functional studies, and nine studies that included both cosmetic and functional components. Sixteen studies utilized both open and closed rhinoplasty and four utilized open rhinoplasty. Both techniques demonstrated high patient and provider satisfaction and no advantage was found between techniques. Based on available studies, we cannot conclude if there is a preference between open or closed rhinoplasty in terms of which technique leads to better patient outcomes. Several studies determined that open rhinoplasty and closed rhinoplasty leads to comparative patient satisfaction. To make outcome reporting more reliable and uniform among studies, authors should look to utilize the Nasal Obstruction and Septoplasty Effectiveness scale and the Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation.

• Archives of Plastic Surgery
• /
• 제35권5호
• /
• pp.589-596
• /
• 2008

Purpose: The nasal bone fracture is most common fracture in facial bone injuries. Regardless of the severity or type of fracture, closed reduction has traditionally been the common method of treatment. However, through detailed pre-operative evaluation, we found out that many patients consider rhinoplasty prior to trauma due to aesthetic desire or nasal deformity with or without septal deviation. In treatment of nasal bone fracture, we focused not only on the fracture management but also on the patients' desire prior to trauma, and we made additional operation according to patients' desire with fracture reduction and gained rewarding outcomes. Methods: From March 2005 to June 2007, total 263 patients were treated for nasal bone fracture. Among these patients, 57 patients (21%) had the additional operation with nasal fracture reduction. The additional operations were categorized in three types: augmentation rhinoplasty with tip plasty (40%), septoplasty only (16%), corrective rhinoplasty (44%). The mean follow-up period was 5.6 months and results were evaluated by scoring. Results: Forty four of 57 patients (77%) were highly satisfied regardless of any additional operation kinds. The complications were one septal perforation, two displacement of implant and four remnant nasal deformities. For the septal perforation, no further management was performed because we lost the contact with the patient. Then 4 of the other complicated patients were revised. Conclusion: In general, many physicians tend to consider nasal fracture as a simple trauma. However through the strict history taking, physical examination and professional counseling, we could catch the patient's cosmetic desire and get the eyes on new concept: the nasal fracture is not only a trauma but a cosmetic and functional field. In the treatment of nasal bone fracture, if additional rhinoplasty is performed, patients will be more satisfied and we also can expect higher profits.