<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:prism="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/prism/">
  <channel>
    <title>AMA Publishing Group: Health Care Delivery Topic Collection</title>
    <link>http://pubs.jamanetwork.com/</link>
    <description>
    </description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 May 2013 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 May 2013 15:44:36 GMT</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>Silverchair</generator>
    <managingEditor>editor@pubs.jamanetwork.com</managingEditor>
    <webMaster>webmaster@pubs.jamanetwork.com</webMaster>
    <item>
      <title>Treatment Outcomes of Saddle Nose Correction Saddle Nose Correction </title>
      <link>http://pubs.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=1687514</link>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 May 2013 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>Hyun S, Jang Y. </author>
      <description>&lt;span class="paragraphSection"&gt;&lt;div class="boxTitle"&gt;Importance&lt;/div&gt;Many valuable classification schemes for saddle nose have been suggested that integrate clinical deformity and treatment; however, there is no consensus regarding the most suitable classification and surgical method for saddle nose correction.&lt;div class="boxTitle"&gt;Objectives&lt;/div&gt;To present clinical characteristics and treatment outcome of saddle nose deformity and to propose a modified classification system to better characterize the variety of different saddle nose deformities.&lt;div class="boxTitle"&gt;Design, Setting, and Participants&lt;/div&gt;The retrospective study included 91 patients who underwent rhinoplasty for correction of saddle nose from April 1, 2003, through December 31, 2011, with a minimum follow-up of 8 months. Saddle nose was classified into 4 types according to a modified classification.&lt;div class="boxTitle"&gt;Main Outcome and Measure&lt;/div&gt;Aesthetic outcomes were classified as excellent, good, fair, or poor.&lt;div class="boxTitle"&gt;Results&lt;/div&gt;Patients underwent minor cosmetic concealment by dorsal augmentation (n = 8) or major septal reconstruction combined with dorsal augmentation (n = 83). Autologous costal cartilages were used in 40 patients (44%), and homologous costal cartilages were used in 5 patients (6%). According to postoperative assessment, 29 patients had excellent, 42 patients had good, 18 patients had fair, and 2 patients had poor aesthetic outcomes. No statistical difference in surgical outcome according to saddle nose classification was observed. Eight patients underwent revision rhinoplasty, owing to recurrence of saddle, wound infection, or warping of the costal cartilage for dorsal augmentation.&lt;div class="boxTitle"&gt;Conclusions&lt;/div&gt;We introduce a modified saddle nose classification scheme that is simpler and better able to characterize different deformities. Among 91 patients with saddle nose, 20 (22%) had unsuccessful outcomes (fair or poor) and 8 (9%) underwent subsequent revision rhinoplasty. Thus, management of saddle nose deformities remains challenging.&lt;/span&gt;</description>
      <prism:startingPage xmlns:prism="prism">1</prism:startingPage>
      <prism:endingPage xmlns:prism="prism">6</prism:endingPage>
      <prism:doi xmlns:prism="prism">10.1001/jamafacial.2013.84</prism:doi>
      <guid>http://pubs.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=1687514</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>