We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This study aimed to explore the current practices of the UK rhinology consultant body in regard to cocaine screening in nasal reconstructive surgery.
Method
A 12-question online survey was distributed to rhinology consultants (October 2021 to February 2022) currently practising in the UK.
Results
A total of 55 consultants responded. Fifty-three per cent asked patients about cocaine use prior to consideration of surgery, and 45 per cent performed cocaine testing prior to consideration of surgery. Of these, the majority employed urine testing alone (60 per cent), with hair testing being less common as a single screening modality (4 per cent). Sixteen per cent opted for both urine and hair testing. The most common reasons for not performing cocaine testing included patient history or clinical examination that was not suggestive of cocaine use (44 per cent), lack of formal guidelines (33 per cent) and lack of testing availability (27 per cent). Sixty-four per cent were in favour of a national policy for cocaine screening.
Conclusion
There is marked variation in cocaine screening practices for nasal reconstructive surgery among UK rhinologists.
To assess the results of reconstruction of composite defects involving the nose which extend to involve the cheeks, eyelids or upper lip.
Study design:
Retrospective observational study.
Material:
Sixteen patients with defects of the nose extending to the adjoining cheek, upper lip or eyelid.
Method:
A combination of flaps and grafts were needed to reconstruct these defects so that the aesthetic subunits were replaced and joined at their junctions wherever possible.
Results:
Where the defect required three or four flaps, there was some unpredictable cicatrisation at their junction that resulted in some asymmetry. This problem primarily occurred at the alar base, and was compounded if there was tissue loss of the premaxilla or maxilla.
Conclusion:
If a defect that involves the nose, cheek and upper lip is repaired with a combination of cheek advancement, nasolabial, paramedian forehead and/or septal flaps, there can be unpredictable cicatrisation at their junction, particularly at the alar base. In these circumstances, we recommend replacing the nasal and other defects with a slightly more generous amount of tissue than would be taken to repair a similar, but solitary, defect. It is important to replace any loss of the facial skeleton, in order to provide support for overlying flaps.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.