The Experts below are selected from a list of 189 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Daniel E Rousso - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a 5 year retrospective review of the silastic midfacial malar implant
2016Co-Authors: Stephen E Metzinger, Gaylon E Mccollough, Jeffrey P Campbell, Daniel E RoussoAbstract:Objectives: To determine the effectiveness and safety of the Silastic midfacial malar implant and to review indications, patient selection, technique, and complications of malar augmentation. Design: Five-year retrospective review of clinical cases with at least 2-year follow-up. Patients: A cohort of 60 consecutive private patients with complaints of malar hypoplasia or facial asymmetry. Setting: A plastic surgery clinic. Intervention: Silastic midfacial malar implants were fitted in each patient. Most underwent implantation via the Canine Fossa approach and in conjunction with another facial plastic procedure. faction, photographic grading using a visual analog scale, and complications. Results: Of the 60 patients, 51 (85.0%) reported an excellent result after at least a 2-year follow-up. Ten patients (16.7%) had some form of undesirable sequelae; however, only 4 (3.4%) of 118 implants had to be revised. Photographically, all 60 patients graded postoperative improvement. Conclusions: Findings support the contention that the Silastic midfacial malar implant is a safe and effective alloplastic alternative to treat malar hypoplasia and facial asymmetry. The complication and revision rates are acceptable. Relative technical ease of insertion makes malar augmentation an excellent adjunct for rhytidectomy and rhinoplasty. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1999;125:980-987
-
malar augmentation a 5 year retrospective review of the silastic midfacial malar implant
Archives of Otolaryngology-head & Neck Surgery, 1999Co-Authors: Stephen E Metzinger, Gaylon E Mccollough, Jeffrey P Campbell, Daniel E RoussoAbstract:Objectives To determine the effectiveness and safety of the Silastic midfacial malar implant and to review indications, patient selection, technique, and complications of malar augmentation. Design Five-year retrospective review of clinical cases with at least 2-year follow-up. Patients A cohort of 60 consecutive private patients with complaints of malar hypoplasia or facial asymmetry. Setting A plastic surgery clinic. Intervention Silastic midfacial malar implants were fitted in each patient. Most underwent implantation via the Canine Fossa approach and in conjunction with another facial plastic procedure. Main Outcome Measures Subjective patient satisfaction, photographic grading using a visual analog scale, and complications. Results Of the 60 patients, 51 (85.0%) reported an excellent result after at least a 2-year follow-up. Ten patients (16.7%) had some form of undesirable sequelae; however, only 4 (3.4%) of 118 implants had to be revised. Photographically, all 60 patients graded postoperative improvement. Conclusions Findings support the contention that the Silastic midfacial malar implant is a safe and effective alloplastic alternative to treat malar hypoplasia and facial asymmetry. The complication and revision rates are acceptable. Relative technical ease of insertion makes malar augmentation an excellent adjunct for rhytidectomy and rhinoplasty.
Stephen E Metzinger - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a 5 year retrospective review of the silastic midfacial malar implant
2016Co-Authors: Stephen E Metzinger, Gaylon E Mccollough, Jeffrey P Campbell, Daniel E RoussoAbstract:Objectives: To determine the effectiveness and safety of the Silastic midfacial malar implant and to review indications, patient selection, technique, and complications of malar augmentation. Design: Five-year retrospective review of clinical cases with at least 2-year follow-up. Patients: A cohort of 60 consecutive private patients with complaints of malar hypoplasia or facial asymmetry. Setting: A plastic surgery clinic. Intervention: Silastic midfacial malar implants were fitted in each patient. Most underwent implantation via the Canine Fossa approach and in conjunction with another facial plastic procedure. faction, photographic grading using a visual analog scale, and complications. Results: Of the 60 patients, 51 (85.0%) reported an excellent result after at least a 2-year follow-up. Ten patients (16.7%) had some form of undesirable sequelae; however, only 4 (3.4%) of 118 implants had to be revised. Photographically, all 60 patients graded postoperative improvement. Conclusions: Findings support the contention that the Silastic midfacial malar implant is a safe and effective alloplastic alternative to treat malar hypoplasia and facial asymmetry. The complication and revision rates are acceptable. Relative technical ease of insertion makes malar augmentation an excellent adjunct for rhytidectomy and rhinoplasty. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1999;125:980-987
-
malar augmentation a 5 year retrospective review of the silastic midfacial malar implant
Archives of Otolaryngology-head & Neck Surgery, 1999Co-Authors: Stephen E Metzinger, Gaylon E Mccollough, Jeffrey P Campbell, Daniel E RoussoAbstract:Objectives To determine the effectiveness and safety of the Silastic midfacial malar implant and to review indications, patient selection, technique, and complications of malar augmentation. Design Five-year retrospective review of clinical cases with at least 2-year follow-up. Patients A cohort of 60 consecutive private patients with complaints of malar hypoplasia or facial asymmetry. Setting A plastic surgery clinic. Intervention Silastic midfacial malar implants were fitted in each patient. Most underwent implantation via the Canine Fossa approach and in conjunction with another facial plastic procedure. Main Outcome Measures Subjective patient satisfaction, photographic grading using a visual analog scale, and complications. Results Of the 60 patients, 51 (85.0%) reported an excellent result after at least a 2-year follow-up. Ten patients (16.7%) had some form of undesirable sequelae; however, only 4 (3.4%) of 118 implants had to be revised. Photographically, all 60 patients graded postoperative improvement. Conclusions Findings support the contention that the Silastic midfacial malar implant is a safe and effective alloplastic alternative to treat malar hypoplasia and facial asymmetry. The complication and revision rates are acceptable. Relative technical ease of insertion makes malar augmentation an excellent adjunct for rhytidectomy and rhinoplasty.
Jeffrey P Campbell - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a 5 year retrospective review of the silastic midfacial malar implant
2016Co-Authors: Stephen E Metzinger, Gaylon E Mccollough, Jeffrey P Campbell, Daniel E RoussoAbstract:Objectives: To determine the effectiveness and safety of the Silastic midfacial malar implant and to review indications, patient selection, technique, and complications of malar augmentation. Design: Five-year retrospective review of clinical cases with at least 2-year follow-up. Patients: A cohort of 60 consecutive private patients with complaints of malar hypoplasia or facial asymmetry. Setting: A plastic surgery clinic. Intervention: Silastic midfacial malar implants were fitted in each patient. Most underwent implantation via the Canine Fossa approach and in conjunction with another facial plastic procedure. faction, photographic grading using a visual analog scale, and complications. Results: Of the 60 patients, 51 (85.0%) reported an excellent result after at least a 2-year follow-up. Ten patients (16.7%) had some form of undesirable sequelae; however, only 4 (3.4%) of 118 implants had to be revised. Photographically, all 60 patients graded postoperative improvement. Conclusions: Findings support the contention that the Silastic midfacial malar implant is a safe and effective alloplastic alternative to treat malar hypoplasia and facial asymmetry. The complication and revision rates are acceptable. Relative technical ease of insertion makes malar augmentation an excellent adjunct for rhytidectomy and rhinoplasty. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1999;125:980-987
-
malar augmentation a 5 year retrospective review of the silastic midfacial malar implant
Archives of Otolaryngology-head & Neck Surgery, 1999Co-Authors: Stephen E Metzinger, Gaylon E Mccollough, Jeffrey P Campbell, Daniel E RoussoAbstract:Objectives To determine the effectiveness and safety of the Silastic midfacial malar implant and to review indications, patient selection, technique, and complications of malar augmentation. Design Five-year retrospective review of clinical cases with at least 2-year follow-up. Patients A cohort of 60 consecutive private patients with complaints of malar hypoplasia or facial asymmetry. Setting A plastic surgery clinic. Intervention Silastic midfacial malar implants were fitted in each patient. Most underwent implantation via the Canine Fossa approach and in conjunction with another facial plastic procedure. Main Outcome Measures Subjective patient satisfaction, photographic grading using a visual analog scale, and complications. Results Of the 60 patients, 51 (85.0%) reported an excellent result after at least a 2-year follow-up. Ten patients (16.7%) had some form of undesirable sequelae; however, only 4 (3.4%) of 118 implants had to be revised. Photographically, all 60 patients graded postoperative improvement. Conclusions Findings support the contention that the Silastic midfacial malar implant is a safe and effective alloplastic alternative to treat malar hypoplasia and facial asymmetry. The complication and revision rates are acceptable. Relative technical ease of insertion makes malar augmentation an excellent adjunct for rhytidectomy and rhinoplasty.
Gaylon E Mccollough - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a 5 year retrospective review of the silastic midfacial malar implant
2016Co-Authors: Stephen E Metzinger, Gaylon E Mccollough, Jeffrey P Campbell, Daniel E RoussoAbstract:Objectives: To determine the effectiveness and safety of the Silastic midfacial malar implant and to review indications, patient selection, technique, and complications of malar augmentation. Design: Five-year retrospective review of clinical cases with at least 2-year follow-up. Patients: A cohort of 60 consecutive private patients with complaints of malar hypoplasia or facial asymmetry. Setting: A plastic surgery clinic. Intervention: Silastic midfacial malar implants were fitted in each patient. Most underwent implantation via the Canine Fossa approach and in conjunction with another facial plastic procedure. faction, photographic grading using a visual analog scale, and complications. Results: Of the 60 patients, 51 (85.0%) reported an excellent result after at least a 2-year follow-up. Ten patients (16.7%) had some form of undesirable sequelae; however, only 4 (3.4%) of 118 implants had to be revised. Photographically, all 60 patients graded postoperative improvement. Conclusions: Findings support the contention that the Silastic midfacial malar implant is a safe and effective alloplastic alternative to treat malar hypoplasia and facial asymmetry. The complication and revision rates are acceptable. Relative technical ease of insertion makes malar augmentation an excellent adjunct for rhytidectomy and rhinoplasty. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1999;125:980-987
-
malar augmentation a 5 year retrospective review of the silastic midfacial malar implant
Archives of Otolaryngology-head & Neck Surgery, 1999Co-Authors: Stephen E Metzinger, Gaylon E Mccollough, Jeffrey P Campbell, Daniel E RoussoAbstract:Objectives To determine the effectiveness and safety of the Silastic midfacial malar implant and to review indications, patient selection, technique, and complications of malar augmentation. Design Five-year retrospective review of clinical cases with at least 2-year follow-up. Patients A cohort of 60 consecutive private patients with complaints of malar hypoplasia or facial asymmetry. Setting A plastic surgery clinic. Intervention Silastic midfacial malar implants were fitted in each patient. Most underwent implantation via the Canine Fossa approach and in conjunction with another facial plastic procedure. Main Outcome Measures Subjective patient satisfaction, photographic grading using a visual analog scale, and complications. Results Of the 60 patients, 51 (85.0%) reported an excellent result after at least a 2-year follow-up. Ten patients (16.7%) had some form of undesirable sequelae; however, only 4 (3.4%) of 118 implants had to be revised. Photographically, all 60 patients graded postoperative improvement. Conclusions Findings support the contention that the Silastic midfacial malar implant is a safe and effective alloplastic alternative to treat malar hypoplasia and facial asymmetry. The complication and revision rates are acceptable. Relative technical ease of insertion makes malar augmentation an excellent adjunct for rhytidectomy and rhinoplasty.
Peterjoh Wormald - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
patterns of innervation of the anterior maxilla a cadaver study with relevance to Canine Fossa puncture of the maxillary sinus
Laryngoscope, 2005Co-Authors: Simo P Robinso, Peterjoh WormaldAbstract:Objectives/Hypothesis: Complications from Canine Fossa puncture of the maxillary sinus are caused by damage to the anterior superior alveolar nerve (ASAN) and the middle superior alveolar nerve (MSAN). The aim of this study was to elucidate the pattern of ASAN and MSAN within the anterior maxilla and to secondly determine suitable surgical landmarks to aid in accurately localizing the area of the Canine Fossa least likely to produce complications when a trocar is passed into the maxillary sinus. Methods: Anatomic dissection of the anterior face of the maxilla from 20 cadaver heads was performed. The pattern and presence of the ASAN and MSAN was identified on each side and tabulated. Landmarks for the safest entry point for Canine Fossa puncture were determined, and each side had a puncture placed using these landmarks. Any disruption of nerves was noted. Results: Multiple differing patterns of ASAN were identified. The ASAN emerged from its foramen as a single trunk in 30 (75%) sides and in a double trunk in 10 (25%). In 24 (60%), single or multiple branches from the ASAN trunks were identified. A MSAN was identified in 9 (23%) maxillae. The safest entry point for a Canine Fossa puncture was where a vertical line drawn through the mid-pupillary line was bisected by a horizontal line drawn through the floor of the pyriform aperture. Conclusions: There is significant variation in the pattern of ASAN and MSAN within the anterior face of the maxilla. By using the newly described landmarks when performing a Canine Fossa puncture, there is reduced risk of damage to these nerves and provides a reliable point to enter the maxillary sinus.
-
Canine Fossa puncture and clearance of the maxillary sinus for the severely diseased maxillary sinus
Laryngoscope, 2005Co-Authors: Shanmugam Sathanantha, Smita Nagaonka, Vinidh Paleri, Simo P Robinso, Peterjoh WormaldAbstract:Objectives: To assess the impact of Canine Fossa puncture (CFP) with clearance of the maxillary sinus during endoscopic sinus surgery on the subjective and objective outcomes as defined by quality of life questionnaires, endoscopic findings, endoscopic aspirate for culture and sensitivity, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evaluation. Study Design: Retrospective, cross-sectional study. Methods: Twenty-five patients who had undergone Canine Fossa were compared to 12 patients who had undergone routine endoscopic middle meatal clearance of the maxillary sinus. At an average postoperative time point of 19.9 months, all patients were administered the chronic sinusitis survey (CSS) and a visual analogue scale (VAS). At this visit, patients underwent nasendoscopy, sampling of the ostial region for bacterial and fungal cultures, and MRI of the sinuses. Results: There were 42 sides for analysis from 25 patients on the study arm; the control arm comprised 12 patients with completely opacified maxillary sinuses and 17 sides for analysis. The CSS symptom subscore was better in the CFP group (Mann-Whitney test, P = .02). The overall VAS score was less in the CFP group (Mann-Whitney test, P = .01), indicating better symptom control. No opacification was evident in 61.9% of patients in the CFP group compared with 11.8% in the control arm (χ2, P < .001). Conclusion: CFP is a useful technique to address the severely diseased maxillary sinus and is associated with significantly better symptom control compared with the transnasal middle meatal antrostomy clearance of the maxillary sinus.
