Volume 74, Issue 2 (May 2016)                   Tehran Univ Med J 2016, 74(2): 120-128 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Khorasani G, Rakei S, Tavakoli A. Long-term use and follow-up of autologous and homologous cartilage graft in rhinoplasty . Tehran Univ Med J. 2016; 74 (2) :120-128
URL: http://tumj.tums.ac.ir/article-1-7407-en.html
1- Department of Plastic Surgery, Imam Khomeini Hospital Com-plex, Tehran University Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
2- Department of Plastic Surgery, Imam Khomeini Hospital Com-plex, Tehran University Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. , siamakrakei@yahoo.com
3- Iranian Tissue Bank Research Center, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract:   (2768 Views)

Background: Cartilage grafting is used in rhinoplasty and reconstructive surgeries. Autologous rib and nasal septum cartilage (auto graft) is the preferred source of graft material in rhinoplasty, however, homologous cartilage (allograft) has been extensively used to correct the nasal framework in nasal deformities. Autologous cartilage graft usage is restricted with complication of operation and limiting availability of tissue for extensive deformities. Alternatively, preserved costal cartilage allograft represents a readily available and easily contoured material. The current study was a formal systematic review of complications associated with autologous versus homologous cartilage grafting in rhinoplasty patients.

Methods: In this cohort retrospective study, a total of 124 patients undergone primary or revision rhinoplasty using homologous or autologus grafts with postoperative follow-up ranging from 6 to 60 months were studied. The types of grafts and complications related to the grafts were evaluated. This included evaluation for warping, infection, resorption, mobility and fracture.

Results: The total complications related to the cartilage grafts were 7 cases, which included 1 warped in auto graft group, three cases of graft displacement (two in allograft group and one in auto graft group) and three fractures in allograft group. No infection and resorption was recorded. Complication rate (confidence interval 0.95) in autologous and homologous group were 1.25(0.4-3.88) and 2.08(0.78-5.55) in 1000 months follow up. There was no statistically significant difference between autologous and homologous group complications. Onset of complication in autologous and homologous group were 51.23(49.27-53.19) and 58.7(54.51-62.91) month respectively (P=0.81).

Conclusion: The allograft cartilage has the advantage of avoiding donor-site scar. Moreover, it provides the same benefits as autologous costal cartilage with comparable complication rate. Therefore, it can be a reliable alternative material for rhinoplasty surgeries. A longer follow-up may be necessary to confirm the structural stability of the allograft cartilage grafts.

Full-Text [PDF 403 kb]   (2170 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Original Article |

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA code

Send email to the article author