Back to Search Start Over

Clinical Practice Patterns and Evidence-Based Medicine in Secondary Cleft Rhinoplasty: A 14-Year Review of Maintenance of Certification Tracer Data From the American Board of Plastic Surgery.

Authors :
Rokni, Alex M.
Kearney, Aaron M.
Brandt, Keith E.
Gosain, Arun K.
Source :
Cleft Palate Craniofacial Journal; Sep2021, Vol. 58 Issue 9, p1110-1120, 11p
Publication Year :
2021

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate evolving practice patterns in secondary cleft rhinoplasty. Design: Retrospective review of data submitted during Maintenance of Certification (MOC). Setting: Evaluation of MOC data from the American Board of Plastic Surgery. Participants: Tracer data for secondary cleft rhinoplasty were reviewed from August 2006 through March 2020, and the data subdivided from 20062012 and 20132020 to evaluate changes in practice patterns. Interventions: Practice patterns in tracer data were compared to those from evidence-based medicine (EBM) literature over this time period. Main Outcome Measures: Practice patterns were compared to EBM trends during the study period. Results: A total of 90 cases of secondary cleft rhinoplasty were identified. The average age at operation was 13 years (range 4-77). Cumulative data demonstrated 61% to present with nasal airway obstruction and 21% to have undergone primary nasal correction at the time of cleft lip repair; 72% of patients experienced no complications, with the most common complications being asymmetry (10%) and vertical asymmetry of alar dome position (6%). Cartilage graft was used in 68% of cases, with 32% employing septal cartilage. Change in practice patterns between 2006 to 2012 and 2013 to 2020 demonstrated increase in dorsal nasal surgery (26% vs 43%, P =.034), use of osteotomies (14% vs 38%, P =.010), septal resection and/or straightening (26% vs 48%, P =.034), and turbinate reduction (8% vs 30%, P =.007). Conclusions: These tracer data provide long-term data by which to evaluate evolving practice patterns for secondary cleft rhinoplasty. When evaluated relative to EBM literature, future research to further improve outcomes can be better directed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
10556656
Volume :
58
Issue :
9
Database :
Complementary Index
Journal :
Cleft Palate Craniofacial Journal
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
152183924
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665620977367