Loading…

Autologous versus prosthetic nasal and auricular reconstruction – patient, professional and layperson perceptions

The aim of this study was to retrospectively evaluate the perceptions of aesthetic outcome following the autologous and prosthetic reconstruction of nasal and auricular defects among patients, professionals (oral and maxillofacial surgeons and ear, nose and throat surgeons) and people unfamiliar wit...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery 2020-10, Vol.49 (10), p.1271-1278
Main Authors: Dings, J.P.J., Vijverberg, M.A., Hol, M.K.S., Ulrich, D.J.O., de Haan, A.F.J., Verhage-Damen, G.W., de Clonie Maclennan-Naphausen, M.T.P., Kruyt, I.J., Ghaeminia, H., Bruekers-Schipper, G.B., Ingels, K.J.A.O., Dicker, G.J., Meijer, G.J., Merkx, M.A.W.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-cae7798c4932295f243a7f96201de39955fe3c45f079719db1b79ecb6debc95f3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-cae7798c4932295f243a7f96201de39955fe3c45f079719db1b79ecb6debc95f3
container_end_page 1278
container_issue 10
container_start_page 1271
container_title International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery
container_volume 49
creator Dings, J.P.J.
Vijverberg, M.A.
Hol, M.K.S.
Ulrich, D.J.O.
de Haan, A.F.J.
Verhage-Damen, G.W.
de Clonie Maclennan-Naphausen, M.T.P.
Kruyt, I.J.
Ghaeminia, H.
Bruekers-Schipper, G.B.
Ingels, K.J.A.O.
Dicker, G.J.
Meijer, G.J.
Merkx, M.A.W.
description The aim of this study was to retrospectively evaluate the perceptions of aesthetic outcome following the autologous and prosthetic reconstruction of nasal and auricular defects among patients, professionals (oral and maxillofacial surgeons and ear, nose and throat surgeons) and people unfamiliar with reconstructive surgery. The influence of anatomical subunits on the overall perception of nasal and auricular reconstructions was also determined. A total of 119 patients treated for nasal and auricular defects between 1997 and 2016, with a minimum follow-up period of 6 months, were selected, and photographs of 77 of these patients (65%) were presented in a digital survey and reviewed using a standardized questionnaire. No clinically relevant correlations were found between the age or gender of patients (as well as those of the respondents) and their scores. Prosthetic reconstructions of nasal and auricular defects were considered advantageous over autologous reconstructions in terms of the subjective aesthetic outcome in the view of the professionals, in particular oral and maxillofacial surgeons; however, the patients judged both techniques to be equally effective in terms of aesthetics. No anatomical subunits were found to have a significant impact on the overall match of a nasal or auricular reconstruction with the patient’s face.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.ijom.2020.02.010
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2377684417</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0901502720300783</els_id><sourcerecordid>2377684417</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-cae7798c4932295f243a7f96201de39955fe3c45f079719db1b79ecb6debc95f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kMFO3DAURS3UCoZpf4AFyrKLJn22k3gssUGoLUhI3cDacpwX8CiTpLaDxI5_6B_yJbxopixZXenp3qt3D2NnHAoOvP6xLfx23BUCBBQgCuBwxFZcap0DnT6xFWjgeQVCnbDTGLcAoOVGHbMTKbiSoqxWLF7OaezHh3GO2ROGSDKFMaZHTN5lg422z-zQZnYO3s29DVlANw4xhdklPw7Z68u_bLLJ45C-L9EOY6T7Idbb54layUficFoi8Qv73Nk-4teDrtn9r593V9f57Z_fN1eXt7mTVZ1yZ1EpvXGllkLoqhOltKrTtQDeIq2sqg6lK6sOlFZctw1vlEbX1C02jvxyzb7te-mtvzPGZHY-Oux7OyDtNUIqVW_KklismdhbHY2PATszBb-z4dlwMAtsszULbLPANiAMwabQ-aF_bnbYvkf-0yXDxd6AtPLJYzDRESiHrSeKybSj_6j_DUdDlHE</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2377684417</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Autologous versus prosthetic nasal and auricular reconstruction – patient, professional and layperson perceptions</title><source>Elsevier</source><creator>Dings, J.P.J. ; Vijverberg, M.A. ; Hol, M.K.S. ; Ulrich, D.J.O. ; de Haan, A.F.J. ; Verhage-Damen, G.W. ; de Clonie Maclennan-Naphausen, M.T.P. ; Kruyt, I.J. ; Ghaeminia, H. ; Bruekers-Schipper, G.B. ; Ingels, K.J.A.O. ; Dicker, G.J. ; Meijer, G.J. ; Merkx, M.A.W.</creator><creatorcontrib>Dings, J.P.J. ; Vijverberg, M.A. ; Hol, M.K.S. ; Ulrich, D.J.O. ; de Haan, A.F.J. ; Verhage-Damen, G.W. ; de Clonie Maclennan-Naphausen, M.T.P. ; Kruyt, I.J. ; Ghaeminia, H. ; Bruekers-Schipper, G.B. ; Ingels, K.J.A.O. ; Dicker, G.J. ; Meijer, G.J. ; Merkx, M.A.W.</creatorcontrib><description>The aim of this study was to retrospectively evaluate the perceptions of aesthetic outcome following the autologous and prosthetic reconstruction of nasal and auricular defects among patients, professionals (oral and maxillofacial surgeons and ear, nose and throat surgeons) and people unfamiliar with reconstructive surgery. The influence of anatomical subunits on the overall perception of nasal and auricular reconstructions was also determined. A total of 119 patients treated for nasal and auricular defects between 1997 and 2016, with a minimum follow-up period of 6 months, were selected, and photographs of 77 of these patients (65%) were presented in a digital survey and reviewed using a standardized questionnaire. No clinically relevant correlations were found between the age or gender of patients (as well as those of the respondents) and their scores. Prosthetic reconstructions of nasal and auricular defects were considered advantageous over autologous reconstructions in terms of the subjective aesthetic outcome in the view of the professionals, in particular oral and maxillofacial surgeons; however, the patients judged both techniques to be equally effective in terms of aesthetics. No anatomical subunits were found to have a significant impact on the overall match of a nasal or auricular reconstruction with the patient’s face.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0901-5027</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1399-0020</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2020.02.010</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32173245</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Denmark: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>aesthetic outcome ; auricular ; Dentistry ; implants ; microtia ; nasal ; prosthesis ; reconstruction</subject><ispartof>International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2020-10, Vol.49 (10), p.1271-1278</ispartof><rights>2020 International Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons</rights><rights>Copyright © 2020 International Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-cae7798c4932295f243a7f96201de39955fe3c45f079719db1b79ecb6debc95f3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-cae7798c4932295f243a7f96201de39955fe3c45f079719db1b79ecb6debc95f3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-8213-9510 ; 0000-0002-9708-935X ; 0000-0001-5142-2236 ; 0000-0003-4181-8426 ; 0000-0002-6459-5782</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32173245$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Dings, J.P.J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vijverberg, M.A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hol, M.K.S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ulrich, D.J.O.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Haan, A.F.J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Verhage-Damen, G.W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Clonie Maclennan-Naphausen, M.T.P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kruyt, I.J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ghaeminia, H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bruekers-Schipper, G.B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ingels, K.J.A.O.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dicker, G.J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meijer, G.J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Merkx, M.A.W.</creatorcontrib><title>Autologous versus prosthetic nasal and auricular reconstruction – patient, professional and layperson perceptions</title><title>International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery</title><addtitle>Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg</addtitle><description>The aim of this study was to retrospectively evaluate the perceptions of aesthetic outcome following the autologous and prosthetic reconstruction of nasal and auricular defects among patients, professionals (oral and maxillofacial surgeons and ear, nose and throat surgeons) and people unfamiliar with reconstructive surgery. The influence of anatomical subunits on the overall perception of nasal and auricular reconstructions was also determined. A total of 119 patients treated for nasal and auricular defects between 1997 and 2016, with a minimum follow-up period of 6 months, were selected, and photographs of 77 of these patients (65%) were presented in a digital survey and reviewed using a standardized questionnaire. No clinically relevant correlations were found between the age or gender of patients (as well as those of the respondents) and their scores. Prosthetic reconstructions of nasal and auricular defects were considered advantageous over autologous reconstructions in terms of the subjective aesthetic outcome in the view of the professionals, in particular oral and maxillofacial surgeons; however, the patients judged both techniques to be equally effective in terms of aesthetics. No anatomical subunits were found to have a significant impact on the overall match of a nasal or auricular reconstruction with the patient’s face.</description><subject>aesthetic outcome</subject><subject>auricular</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>implants</subject><subject>microtia</subject><subject>nasal</subject><subject>prosthesis</subject><subject>reconstruction</subject><issn>0901-5027</issn><issn>1399-0020</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kMFO3DAURS3UCoZpf4AFyrKLJn22k3gssUGoLUhI3cDacpwX8CiTpLaDxI5_6B_yJbxopixZXenp3qt3D2NnHAoOvP6xLfx23BUCBBQgCuBwxFZcap0DnT6xFWjgeQVCnbDTGLcAoOVGHbMTKbiSoqxWLF7OaezHh3GO2ROGSDKFMaZHTN5lg422z-zQZnYO3s29DVlANw4xhdklPw7Z68u_bLLJ45C-L9EOY6T7Idbb54layUficFoi8Qv73Nk-4teDrtn9r593V9f57Z_fN1eXt7mTVZ1yZ1EpvXGllkLoqhOltKrTtQDeIq2sqg6lK6sOlFZctw1vlEbX1C02jvxyzb7te-mtvzPGZHY-Oux7OyDtNUIqVW_KklismdhbHY2PATszBb-z4dlwMAtsszULbLPANiAMwabQ-aF_bnbYvkf-0yXDxd6AtPLJYzDRESiHrSeKybSj_6j_DUdDlHE</recordid><startdate>20201001</startdate><enddate>20201001</enddate><creator>Dings, J.P.J.</creator><creator>Vijverberg, M.A.</creator><creator>Hol, M.K.S.</creator><creator>Ulrich, D.J.O.</creator><creator>de Haan, A.F.J.</creator><creator>Verhage-Damen, G.W.</creator><creator>de Clonie Maclennan-Naphausen, M.T.P.</creator><creator>Kruyt, I.J.</creator><creator>Ghaeminia, H.</creator><creator>Bruekers-Schipper, G.B.</creator><creator>Ingels, K.J.A.O.</creator><creator>Dicker, G.J.</creator><creator>Meijer, G.J.</creator><creator>Merkx, M.A.W.</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8213-9510</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9708-935X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5142-2236</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4181-8426</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6459-5782</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20201001</creationdate><title>Autologous versus prosthetic nasal and auricular reconstruction – patient, professional and layperson perceptions</title><author>Dings, J.P.J. ; Vijverberg, M.A. ; Hol, M.K.S. ; Ulrich, D.J.O. ; de Haan, A.F.J. ; Verhage-Damen, G.W. ; de Clonie Maclennan-Naphausen, M.T.P. ; Kruyt, I.J. ; Ghaeminia, H. ; Bruekers-Schipper, G.B. ; Ingels, K.J.A.O. ; Dicker, G.J. ; Meijer, G.J. ; Merkx, M.A.W.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-cae7798c4932295f243a7f96201de39955fe3c45f079719db1b79ecb6debc95f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>aesthetic outcome</topic><topic>auricular</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>implants</topic><topic>microtia</topic><topic>nasal</topic><topic>prosthesis</topic><topic>reconstruction</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Dings, J.P.J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vijverberg, M.A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hol, M.K.S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ulrich, D.J.O.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Haan, A.F.J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Verhage-Damen, G.W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Clonie Maclennan-Naphausen, M.T.P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kruyt, I.J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ghaeminia, H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bruekers-Schipper, G.B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ingels, K.J.A.O.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dicker, G.J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meijer, G.J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Merkx, M.A.W.</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Dings, J.P.J.</au><au>Vijverberg, M.A.</au><au>Hol, M.K.S.</au><au>Ulrich, D.J.O.</au><au>de Haan, A.F.J.</au><au>Verhage-Damen, G.W.</au><au>de Clonie Maclennan-Naphausen, M.T.P.</au><au>Kruyt, I.J.</au><au>Ghaeminia, H.</au><au>Bruekers-Schipper, G.B.</au><au>Ingels, K.J.A.O.</au><au>Dicker, G.J.</au><au>Meijer, G.J.</au><au>Merkx, M.A.W.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Autologous versus prosthetic nasal and auricular reconstruction – patient, professional and layperson perceptions</atitle><jtitle>International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery</jtitle><addtitle>Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg</addtitle><date>2020-10-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>49</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>1271</spage><epage>1278</epage><pages>1271-1278</pages><issn>0901-5027</issn><eissn>1399-0020</eissn><abstract>The aim of this study was to retrospectively evaluate the perceptions of aesthetic outcome following the autologous and prosthetic reconstruction of nasal and auricular defects among patients, professionals (oral and maxillofacial surgeons and ear, nose and throat surgeons) and people unfamiliar with reconstructive surgery. The influence of anatomical subunits on the overall perception of nasal and auricular reconstructions was also determined. A total of 119 patients treated for nasal and auricular defects between 1997 and 2016, with a minimum follow-up period of 6 months, were selected, and photographs of 77 of these patients (65%) were presented in a digital survey and reviewed using a standardized questionnaire. No clinically relevant correlations were found between the age or gender of patients (as well as those of the respondents) and their scores. Prosthetic reconstructions of nasal and auricular defects were considered advantageous over autologous reconstructions in terms of the subjective aesthetic outcome in the view of the professionals, in particular oral and maxillofacial surgeons; however, the patients judged both techniques to be equally effective in terms of aesthetics. No anatomical subunits were found to have a significant impact on the overall match of a nasal or auricular reconstruction with the patient’s face.</abstract><cop>Denmark</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>32173245</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.ijom.2020.02.010</doi><tpages>8</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8213-9510</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9708-935X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5142-2236</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4181-8426</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6459-5782</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0901-5027
ispartof International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2020-10, Vol.49 (10), p.1271-1278
issn 0901-5027
1399-0020
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2377684417
source Elsevier
subjects aesthetic outcome
auricular
Dentistry
implants
microtia
nasal
prosthesis
reconstruction
title Autologous versus prosthetic nasal and auricular reconstruction – patient, professional and layperson perceptions
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T19%3A37%3A57IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Autologous%20versus%20prosthetic%20nasal%20and%20auricular%20reconstruction%20%E2%80%93%20patient,%20professional%20and%20layperson%20perceptions&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20of%20oral%20and%20maxillofacial%20surgery&rft.au=Dings,%20J.P.J.&rft.date=2020-10-01&rft.volume=49&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=1271&rft.epage=1278&rft.pages=1271-1278&rft.issn=0901-5027&rft.eissn=1399-0020&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.ijom.2020.02.010&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2377684417%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-cae7798c4932295f243a7f96201de39955fe3c45f079719db1b79ecb6debc95f3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2377684417&rft_id=info:pmid/32173245&rfr_iscdi=true