Huffman, Kristin

Background: There are different types of grafts for rhinoplasty, each with certain advantages and disadvantages. Fresh frozen cadaveric costal allograft (CCA) provides an alternative to rhinoplasties. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of fresh frozen CCA and traditional autologous costal cartilage in cosmetic and reconstructive rhinoplasty procedures. Methods: This is a prospective, single-center, nonrandomized, open-label clinical trial. Objective assessment to evaluate warping, resorption, and displacement of the cartilage was achieved by measuring the differences of standardized values (deviation angle, nasofrontal angle, total facial convexity, nasofacial angle, and nasolabial angle) obtained at 6-months and 12-months postoperative follow-up on standard two-dimensional photographs (Δ = ∣measurement6 − measurement12∣). Subjective assessment was measured by the FACE-Q assessment. Results: Fifty eligible patients between March 2017 and October 2020 were included. The average age was 43.9 ± 16.6 years and the mean follow-up period was 14.8 months. In the control group, the changes (Δ) in the deviation angle and nasolabial angle were greater than in the CCA group (P < 0.05). In the CCA group, the mean score of satisfaction with nose improved at 6 months and 1 year postoperatively (P < 0.05). The mean score of satisfaction with nostrils and overall facial appearance also increased in the CCA group at 6 months postoperatively (P < 0.05). Six patients from the CCA group and 10 patients from the control group experienced postoperative complications. Conclusions: Fresh frozen CCA is a safe and reliable source of rhinoplasty grafts. It is aseptic, readily available, and free of donor site complications.

Abstract Across scar studies, there is a lack of dark‐skinned individuals, who have a predisposition for keloid formation, altered pigmentation and poorer quality of life (QOL). There is a need for patients of colour to be included in scar scale development and validation. In this study, we evaluate the racial diversity of patients included in the validation of scar assessment scales. A systematic review was conducted for articles reporting on the validation of a scar assessment tool. Racial, ethnic and Fitzpatrick skin type (FST) data were extracted. Fifteen scar scale validation studies were included. Nine of the studies did not mention FST, race or ethnicity of the patients. Two of the studies that reported FST or race information only included White patients or included no FST V/VI patients: mapping assessment of scars (MAPS) and University of North Carolina ‘4P’. Only four studies included non‐White patients or dark‐skinned patients in the validation of their scar scale: the modified Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS), modified Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS), acne QOL and SCAR‐Q scales. The patients included in the modified VSS validation were 7% and 13% FST V/VI, 14% African in the modified POSAS and 4.5% FST V/VI in the SCAR‐Q. We highlight the severe lack of diversity in scar scale validation, with only 4 out of 15 studies including dark‐skinned patients. Given the susceptibility of darker‐skinned individuals to have poorer scarring outcomes, it is critical to include patients of colour in the very assessment tools that determine their scar prognosis. Inclusion of patients of colour in scar scale development will improve scar assessment and clinical decision‐making.