Cost Utility Analysis of Costal Cartilage Autografts and Human Cadaveric Allografts in Rhinoplasty

Outcomes of Autologous Versus Irradiated Homologous Costal Cartilage Graft in Rhinoplasty

Background: Autologous costal cartilage (ACC) and irradiated homologous costal cartilage (IHCC) are commonly used in septorhinoplasty when there is insufficient septal cartilage for grafting. Objective: To assess the surgical outcomes of patients who underwent septorhinoplasty with either ACC or IHCC as measured by rates of infection, resorption, warping, and revision rate. Methods: A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent rhinoplasty with ACC or IHCC at a single academic institution was performed. Demographic data, surgical details, antibiotic use, and outcomes, including surgical duration, infection, resorption, warping, and revision rate, were analyzed using Fisher's exact test, chi-squared test, and logistic regression. Results: One hundred forty-three patients were identified. The median age was 48 years (interquartile range: 35-57.5) and 62.2% (n = 89) were female, 61 patients (42.7%) underwent ACC, and 82 (57.3%) IHCC. Revision rate in both groups was similar (ACC = 14.8%, IHCC = 14.6%; p = 0.98). There was no difference in infection rate (ACC = 4.9%, IHCC = 3.7%; p = 0.71). Postoperative deformity and nasal obstruction were the most common indications for revision surgery. Surgical time was shorter with IHCC (p < 0.01). Mean follow-up time was 26.5 months (±25) for ACC, and 16 months (±12) for IHCC. Conclusions: ACC and IHCC are similar in terms of effectiveness and safety in septorhinoplasty.

Economic impact analysis of a minimally invasive temperature-controlled radiofrequency device versus nasal surgery for the treatment of nasal airway obstruction in the United States

OBJECTIVE

To determine the economic impact of a minimally invasive temperature-controlled radiofrequency (TCRF) device for treating nasal airway obstruction (NAO).

METHODS

A budget impact model was developed for two scenarios: a reference scenario of functional rhinoplasty surgery with concomitant septoplasty and inferior turbinate reduction (ITR) performed in the hospital outpatient department where TCRF is not an available treatment option and a new scenario consisting of in-office TCRF treatment of the nasal valve and ITR. A payor perspective was adopted with a hypothetical population plan size of one million members. Costs were estimated over a time horizon of 4 years. The eligible population included patients with severe/extreme NAO and nasal valve collapse (NVC) as the primary cause or significant contributor. Data inputs were sourced from targeted literature reviews. Uncertainty within the model structure and input parameters was assessed using one-way sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

The introduction of a TCRF device resulted in population-level cost savings of $20,015,123 and per-responder average cost savings of $3531 through a 4-year time horizon due to lower procedure costs and complication rates of the device relative to the surgical comparator. Results were robust when varying parameter values in sensitivity analyses, with cost savings being most sensitive to the prevalence of NAO and estimated response rates to functional rhinoplasty and TCRF.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with severe/extreme NAO, with NVC as the primary or major contributor, introducing TCRF with ITR as a treatment option demonstrates the potential for significant cost savings over functional rhinoplasty with septoplasty and ITR.

Considerations for Optimal Grafting in Rhinoplasty

A wide variety of grafting materials and techniques can be used to create functional and aesthetic changes in rhinoplasty. Choosing the optimal grafting approach is critical to achieving an optimal patient outcome. We present a review of autografts, allografts, and alloplasts used in primary and revision rhinoplasty and discuss factors that impact graft choice. Autologous grafts serve as the pillar for grafting material in rhinoplasty given their reliable long-term outcomes, low rates of infection, resorption, and extrusion, and ability to provide structural scaffolding as well as contour. Cadaveric allografts can be utilized as a source of grafting material in certain clinical scenarios including revision rhinoplasty and have been shown to be equally safe and effective as autologous grafts while avoiding donor-site morbidity. Alloplasts can prove useful in rhinoplasty in cases of iatrogenic nasal deformities or revision cases. Careful consideration of clinical scenario, patient factors, and outcome goals is necessary to choose the appropriate grafting approach to address functional and cosmetic outcomes.

Sericin nano-gel agglomerates mimicking the pericellular matrix induce the condensation of mesenchymal stem cells and trigger cartilage micro-tissue formation without exogenous stimulation of growth factors in vitro

Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are excellent seed cells for cartilage tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Though the condensation of MSCs is the first step of their differentiation into chondrocytes in skeletal development, the process is a challenge in cartilage repairing by MSCs. The pericellular matrix (PCM), a distinct region surrounding the chondrocytes, acts as an extracellular linker among cells and forms the microenvironment of chondrocytes. Inspired by this, sericin nano-gel soft-agglomerates were prepared and used as linkers to induce MSCs to assemble into micro-spheres and differentiate into cartilage-like micro-tissues without exogenous stimulation of growth factors. These sericin nano-gel soft-agglomerates are composed of sericin nano-gels prepared by the chelation of metal ions and sericin protein. The MSCs cultured on 2D culture plates self-assembled into cell-microspheres centered by sericin nano-gel agglomerates. The self-assembly progress of MSCs is superior to the traditional centrifugation to achieve MSC condensation due to its facility, friendliness to MSCs and avoidance of the side-effects of growth factors. The analysis of transcriptomic results suggested that sericin nano-gel agglomerates offered a soft mechanical stimulation to MSCs similar to that of the PCM to chondrocytes and triggered some signaling pathways as associated with MSC chondrogenesis. The strategy of utilizing biomaterials to mimic the PCM as a linker and as a mechanical micro-environment and to induce cell aggregation and trigger the differentiation of MSCs can be employed to drive 3D cellular organization and micro-tissue fabrication in vitro. These cartilage micro-masses reported in this study can be potential candidates for cartilage repairing, cellular building blocks for 3D bio-printing and a model for cartilage development and drug screening.

Efficacy and safety of equine cartilage for rhinoplasty: a multicenter double-blind non-inferiority randomized confirmatory clinical trial

Background

The efficacy and safety of equine cartilage as a competent xenograft material for rhinoplasty were evaluated and compared to the outcomes of rhinoplasty using silicone implants.

Methods

We performed a multicenter, double-blind, non-inferiority, and randomized confirmatory study. Fifty-six patients were randomized 1:1 to the study group (using MegaCartilage-E) and control group (using silicone implants). The Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation (ROE) score, photo documentation, Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS), and adverse event data were obtained until 12 months after surgery. The primary efficacy, which is the change in ROE score 6 months after surgery, was assessed in the modified intention-to-treat set. The secondary efficacy was evaluated in the per-protocol set by assessing the change in ROE score 6 and 12 months after surgery and nasofrontal angle, the height of the nasion, and GAIS 1, 6, and 12 months after surgery.

Results

The change in ROE score of the study group was non-inferior to that of the control group; it increased by 24.26±17.24 in the study group and 18.27±17.60 in the control group (p=0.213). In both groups, all secondary outcome measures increased, but there was no statistical difference. In the safety set, treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 10 patients (35.71%) in the study group and six patients (21.43%) in the control group (p=0.237). There were 13 adverse device events in the study group and six adverse device events in the control group (p=0.515).

Conclusion

Processed equine cartilage can be used effectively and safely as xenograft material for rhinoplasty.

Complications associated with irradiated homologous costal cartilage use in rhinoplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The use of irradiated homologous costal cartilage (IHCC) as an alternative source of graft material for rhinoplasty remains controversial because of the risk of complications. Herein, we aimed to perform a comprehensive assessment of complications associated with IHCC use in rhinoplasty through a meta-analysis of published studies.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to identify eligible published studies, and we evaluated the complication rates of IHCC use in rhinoplasty. Published studies meeting the inclusion criteria included clinical studies involving at least 10 patients and assessing at least 1 postoperative long-term complication of rhinoplasty. Two investigators independently extracted data from the included studies using a standardized form. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. The main outcomes were the rates of various complications, including the need for revision surgery.

RESULTS

Ten studies involving a total of 959 patients were analyzed. The complication rates were 2.07% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80%-5.23%) for warping, 1.77% (95% CI, 1.10%-2.83%) for infection, 1.34% (95% CI, 0.34%-5.16%) for resorption, 2.13% (95% CI, 0.86%-5.19%) for displacement, 2.99% (95% CI, 1.24%-7.03%) for revision, 0.16% (95% CI, 0.01%-3.25%) for extrusion, and 2.04% (95% CI, 1.02%-4.02%) for avulsion. All the included trials had moderate-to-high methodological quality except for small sample sizes and subjectively reporting of some complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall long-term complication rates associated with IHCC use in rhinoplasty were low. Revision and displacement were the most common complications at the one-year follow-up; surgeons should pay special attention to the risk of these complications. IHCC can serve as a reliable material for rhinoplasty and achieve good patient satisfaction.

The Use of Autologous and Cadaveric Grafts in Rhinoplasty: A Survey Study

BACKGROUND

Both autologous and cadaveric grafts are often used during rhinoplasty to create volume and provide support. Despite discussion in the literature comparing the efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and complication rates between grafting options, it remains unclear which is the superior choice when considering availability, donor site morbidity, and cost. There is a little description of the current use of these materials amongst facial plastic surgeons.

METHODS

A 12 question survey was created, and IRB approval was obtained. The survey was distributed to practicing members of the AAFPRS via their membership listserv.

RESULTS

178 respondents completed the survey for an overall response rate of 17.5%. The most common rhinoplasty graft types used by respondents were autologous septal cartilage (96.6%), autologous auricular grafts (93.8%), autologous rib graft (ARG) (75.8%), and cadaveric rib graft (CRG) (56.7%). Patient comorbidities and performing more than 50 rhinoplasties per year were positively correlated with use of CRG grafts and concerns about complications and cost were negatively correlated.

CONCLUSIONS

While autologous septal and auricular cartilage remain the most common graft choices amongst surveyed facial plastic surgeons, a majority utilize cadaveric rib grafts in their practice. Patient comorbidities, surgery volume, concerns about graft complications, and cost were the chief factors associated with use of cadaveric grafts amongst survey respondents.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .