Three-dimensional modeling and comparison of nasal flap designs
Few studies exist that compare local flap repair designs either mathematically or clinically. Previous mathematical studies use a two-dimensional modeling approach, which is not suited to complex structures like the nose. To quantitatively analyze and compare flap designs for nasal repair using thre...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Archives of Dermatological Research 2020-10, Vol.312 (8), p.575-579 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 579 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 8 |
| container_start_page | 575 |
| container_title | Archives of Dermatological Research |
| container_volume | 312 |
| creator | Mattox, Adam R. Behshad, Ramona Sepe, Daniel J. Armbrecht, Eric S. Maher, Ian A. |
| description | Few studies exist that compare local flap repair designs either mathematically or clinically. Previous mathematical studies use a two-dimensional modeling approach, which is not suited to complex structures like the nose. To quantitatively analyze and compare flap designs for nasal repair using three-dimensional, photographic models. via a three-dimensional imaging system (Vectra M3, Canfield Scientific, Parsippany, NJ, USA), images were captured of actual post-Mohs nasal defects on 12 consecutive patients. Transposition, rotation, and advancement flap designs were designed and assessed based on tissue efficiency (
E
t
= SA
wound
/(SA
wound
+ SA
trimmed
) × 100), suture efficiency (
E
s
= SA
wound
/Length
sutured
× 100), total area undermined, combined 1° and 2° flap motion efficiency (
E
fm
= SA
wound
/(SA
undermined
− (SA
wound
+ SA
trimmed
)) × 100), incision efficiency (
E
i
= SA
wound
/length
incision
× 100), and undermining efficiency (
E
u
= SA
wound
/SA
undermined
× 100). Rotation flap designs are the most tissue efficient (
p
|
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00403-020-02039-4 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2355937891</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2355937891</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-ea3451a8f38c1c50628221cdbd92f59ce2da342d1cb0c34f8f6bc29f97aa34063</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kMtKAzEUhoMottS-gAsZcONm9OQymclKpHiDgpsK7kKaS50yk9Sks_DtTa0XcGHgEMj5zn_Ih9AphksMUF8lAAa0BAK7oqJkB2iMGSUlcPFyiMZAGZSUCz5C05TWkE8NjEB9jEaUAAeO-RhdL16jtaVpe-tTG7zqij4Y27V-VShvCh36jYptCr4IrvAqZcB1alMYm9qVTyfoyKku2enXPUHPd7eL2UM5f7p_nN3MS03raltaRVmFVeNoo7GugJOGEKzN0gjiKqEtMZkgBuslaMpc4_hSE-FErfI7cDpBF_vcTQxvg01b2bdJ265T3oYhSUKrStC6ETij53_QdRhi_lmmWF5ScUJ3gWRP6RhSitbJTWx7Fd8lBrkzLPeGZbYrPw1LlofOvqKHZW_Nz8i3zwzQPZByy69s_N39T-wHu3iEqg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2434256236</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Three-dimensional modeling and comparison of nasal flap designs</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerNature Journals</source><creator>Mattox, Adam R. ; Behshad, Ramona ; Sepe, Daniel J. ; Armbrecht, Eric S. ; Maher, Ian A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Mattox, Adam R. ; Behshad, Ramona ; Sepe, Daniel J. ; Armbrecht, Eric S. ; Maher, Ian A.</creatorcontrib><description>Few studies exist that compare local flap repair designs either mathematically or clinically. Previous mathematical studies use a two-dimensional modeling approach, which is not suited to complex structures like the nose. To quantitatively analyze and compare flap designs for nasal repair using three-dimensional, photographic models. via a three-dimensional imaging system (Vectra M3, Canfield Scientific, Parsippany, NJ, USA), images were captured of actual post-Mohs nasal defects on 12 consecutive patients. Transposition, rotation, and advancement flap designs were designed and assessed based on tissue efficiency (
E
t
= SA
wound
/(SA
wound
+ SA
trimmed
) × 100), suture efficiency (
E
s
= SA
wound
/Length
sutured
× 100), total area undermined, combined 1° and 2° flap motion efficiency (
E
fm
= SA
wound
/(SA
undermined
− (SA
wound
+ SA
trimmed
)) × 100), incision efficiency (
E
i
= SA
wound
/length
incision
× 100), and undermining efficiency (
E
u
= SA
wound
/SA
undermined
× 100). Rotation flap designs are the most tissue efficient (
p
< 0.001). Transposition designs are the least suture efficient (
p
= 0.012) and require less undermining than the corresponding rotation flaps (although not statistically significant). Advancement flaps have the highest flap motion efficiency (
p
= 0.027). Incision and undermining efficiency is equivalent between all three designs (
p
= 0.308 and
p
= 0.158, respectively). While statistically significant differences exist between the flaps studied, the clinical significance is unknown. Consequently, the choice in repair design should be made based on its ability to attain a functionally and aesthetically successful reconstruction.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0340-3696</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-069X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00403-020-02039-4</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32060616</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Carcinoma, Basal Cell - surgery ; Dermatology ; Design ; Efficiency ; Esthetics ; Female ; Humans ; Imaging, Three-Dimensional ; Male ; Mathematical models ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Middle Aged ; Models, Anatomic ; Mohs Surgery - adverse effects ; Nose - anatomy & histology ; Nose - diagnostic imaging ; Nose - surgery ; Nose Neoplasms - surgery ; Original Paper ; Patient Care Planning ; Photography ; Rhinoplasty - methods ; Skin Neoplasms - surgery ; Statistical analysis ; Surgical Flaps - transplantation ; Surgical Wound - surgery ; Sutures ; Transposition ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>Archives of Dermatological Research, 2020-10, Vol.312 (8), p.575-579</ispartof><rights>Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020</rights><rights>Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-ea3451a8f38c1c50628221cdbd92f59ce2da342d1cb0c34f8f6bc29f97aa34063</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-ea3451a8f38c1c50628221cdbd92f59ce2da342d1cb0c34f8f6bc29f97aa34063</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-3768-9695</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00403-020-02039-4$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00403-020-02039-4$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,41488,42557,51319</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32060616$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Mattox, Adam R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Behshad, Ramona</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sepe, Daniel J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Armbrecht, Eric S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maher, Ian A.</creatorcontrib><title>Three-dimensional modeling and comparison of nasal flap designs</title><title>Archives of Dermatological Research</title><addtitle>Arch Dermatol Res</addtitle><addtitle>Arch Dermatol Res</addtitle><description>Few studies exist that compare local flap repair designs either mathematically or clinically. Previous mathematical studies use a two-dimensional modeling approach, which is not suited to complex structures like the nose. To quantitatively analyze and compare flap designs for nasal repair using three-dimensional, photographic models. via a three-dimensional imaging system (Vectra M3, Canfield Scientific, Parsippany, NJ, USA), images were captured of actual post-Mohs nasal defects on 12 consecutive patients. Transposition, rotation, and advancement flap designs were designed and assessed based on tissue efficiency (
E
t
= SA
wound
/(SA
wound
+ SA
trimmed
) × 100), suture efficiency (
E
s
= SA
wound
/Length
sutured
× 100), total area undermined, combined 1° and 2° flap motion efficiency (
E
fm
= SA
wound
/(SA
undermined
− (SA
wound
+ SA
trimmed
)) × 100), incision efficiency (
E
i
= SA
wound
/length
incision
× 100), and undermining efficiency (
E
u
= SA
wound
/SA
undermined
× 100). Rotation flap designs are the most tissue efficient (
p
< 0.001). Transposition designs are the least suture efficient (
p
= 0.012) and require less undermining than the corresponding rotation flaps (although not statistically significant). Advancement flaps have the highest flap motion efficiency (
p
= 0.027). Incision and undermining efficiency is equivalent between all three designs (
p
= 0.308 and
p
= 0.158, respectively). While statistically significant differences exist between the flaps studied, the clinical significance is unknown. Consequently, the choice in repair design should be made based on its ability to attain a functionally and aesthetically successful reconstruction.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Carcinoma, Basal Cell - surgery</subject><subject>Dermatology</subject><subject>Design</subject><subject>Efficiency</subject><subject>Esthetics</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Imaging, Three-Dimensional</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Mathematical models</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Models, Anatomic</subject><subject>Mohs Surgery - adverse effects</subject><subject>Nose - anatomy & histology</subject><subject>Nose - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Nose - surgery</subject><subject>Nose Neoplasms - surgery</subject><subject>Original Paper</subject><subject>Patient Care Planning</subject><subject>Photography</subject><subject>Rhinoplasty - methods</subject><subject>Skin Neoplasms - surgery</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Surgical Flaps - transplantation</subject><subject>Surgical Wound - surgery</subject><subject>Sutures</subject><subject>Transposition</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>0340-3696</issn><issn>1432-069X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kMtKAzEUhoMottS-gAsZcONm9OQymclKpHiDgpsK7kKaS50yk9Sks_DtTa0XcGHgEMj5zn_Ih9AphksMUF8lAAa0BAK7oqJkB2iMGSUlcPFyiMZAGZSUCz5C05TWkE8NjEB9jEaUAAeO-RhdL16jtaVpe-tTG7zqij4Y27V-VShvCh36jYptCr4IrvAqZcB1alMYm9qVTyfoyKku2enXPUHPd7eL2UM5f7p_nN3MS03raltaRVmFVeNoo7GugJOGEKzN0gjiKqEtMZkgBuslaMpc4_hSE-FErfI7cDpBF_vcTQxvg01b2bdJ265T3oYhSUKrStC6ETij53_QdRhi_lmmWF5ScUJ3gWRP6RhSitbJTWx7Fd8lBrkzLPeGZbYrPw1LlofOvqKHZW_Nz8i3zwzQPZByy69s_N39T-wHu3iEqg</recordid><startdate>20201001</startdate><enddate>20201001</enddate><creator>Mattox, Adam R.</creator><creator>Behshad, Ramona</creator><creator>Sepe, Daniel J.</creator><creator>Armbrecht, Eric S.</creator><creator>Maher, Ian A.</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3768-9695</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20201001</creationdate><title>Three-dimensional modeling and comparison of nasal flap designs</title><author>Mattox, Adam R. ; Behshad, Ramona ; Sepe, Daniel J. ; Armbrecht, Eric S. ; Maher, Ian A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-ea3451a8f38c1c50628221cdbd92f59ce2da342d1cb0c34f8f6bc29f97aa34063</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Carcinoma, Basal Cell - surgery</topic><topic>Dermatology</topic><topic>Design</topic><topic>Efficiency</topic><topic>Esthetics</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Imaging, Three-Dimensional</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Mathematical models</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Models, Anatomic</topic><topic>Mohs Surgery - adverse effects</topic><topic>Nose - anatomy & histology</topic><topic>Nose - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Nose - surgery</topic><topic>Nose Neoplasms - surgery</topic><topic>Original Paper</topic><topic>Patient Care Planning</topic><topic>Photography</topic><topic>Rhinoplasty - methods</topic><topic>Skin Neoplasms - surgery</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Surgical Flaps - transplantation</topic><topic>Surgical Wound - surgery</topic><topic>Sutures</topic><topic>Transposition</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mattox, Adam R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Behshad, Ramona</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sepe, Daniel J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Armbrecht, Eric S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maher, Ian A.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Archives of Dermatological Research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mattox, Adam R.</au><au>Behshad, Ramona</au><au>Sepe, Daniel J.</au><au>Armbrecht, Eric S.</au><au>Maher, Ian A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Three-dimensional modeling and comparison of nasal flap designs</atitle><jtitle>Archives of Dermatological Research</jtitle><stitle>Arch Dermatol Res</stitle><addtitle>Arch Dermatol Res</addtitle><date>2020-10-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>312</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>575</spage><epage>579</epage><pages>575-579</pages><issn>0340-3696</issn><eissn>1432-069X</eissn><abstract>Few studies exist that compare local flap repair designs either mathematically or clinically. Previous mathematical studies use a two-dimensional modeling approach, which is not suited to complex structures like the nose. To quantitatively analyze and compare flap designs for nasal repair using three-dimensional, photographic models. via a three-dimensional imaging system (Vectra M3, Canfield Scientific, Parsippany, NJ, USA), images were captured of actual post-Mohs nasal defects on 12 consecutive patients. Transposition, rotation, and advancement flap designs were designed and assessed based on tissue efficiency (
E
t
= SA
wound
/(SA
wound
+ SA
trimmed
) × 100), suture efficiency (
E
s
= SA
wound
/Length
sutured
× 100), total area undermined, combined 1° and 2° flap motion efficiency (
E
fm
= SA
wound
/(SA
undermined
− (SA
wound
+ SA
trimmed
)) × 100), incision efficiency (
E
i
= SA
wound
/length
incision
× 100), and undermining efficiency (
E
u
= SA
wound
/SA
undermined
× 100). Rotation flap designs are the most tissue efficient (
p
< 0.001). Transposition designs are the least suture efficient (
p
= 0.012) and require less undermining than the corresponding rotation flaps (although not statistically significant). Advancement flaps have the highest flap motion efficiency (
p
= 0.027). Incision and undermining efficiency is equivalent between all three designs (
p
= 0.308 and
p
= 0.158, respectively). While statistically significant differences exist between the flaps studied, the clinical significance is unknown. Consequently, the choice in repair design should be made based on its ability to attain a functionally and aesthetically successful reconstruction.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><pmid>32060616</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00403-020-02039-4</doi><tpages>5</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3768-9695</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0340-3696 |
| ispartof | Archives of Dermatological Research, 2020-10, Vol.312 (8), p.575-579 |
| issn | 0340-3696 1432-069X |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2355937891 |
| source | MEDLINE; SpringerNature Journals |
| subjects | Adult Aged Aged, 80 and over Carcinoma, Basal Cell - surgery Dermatology Design Efficiency Esthetics Female Humans Imaging, Three-Dimensional Male Mathematical models Medicine Medicine & Public Health Middle Aged Models, Anatomic Mohs Surgery - adverse effects Nose - anatomy & histology Nose - diagnostic imaging Nose - surgery Nose Neoplasms - surgery Original Paper Patient Care Planning Photography Rhinoplasty - methods Skin Neoplasms - surgery Statistical analysis Surgical Flaps - transplantation Surgical Wound - surgery Sutures Transposition Treatment Outcome |
| title | Three-dimensional modeling and comparison of nasal flap designs |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-30T21%3A08%3A31IST&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=Three-dimensional%20modeling%20and%20comparison%20of%20nasal%20flap%20designs&rft.jtitle=Archives%20of%20Dermatological%20Research&rft.au=Mattox,%20Adam%20R.&rft.date=2020-10-01&rft.volume=312&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=575&rft.epage=579&rft.pages=575-579&rft.issn=0340-3696&rft.eissn=1432-069X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00403-020-02039-4&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2355937891%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2434256236&rft_id=info:pmid/32060616&rfr_iscdi=true |