Back to Authors

Tollefson, Travis T.

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8658-8647

Mayo Clinic

University of California, Davis

Citations 7

Evolution of Facial Plastic Surgery Global Surgery Outreach in the Context of International Conflict and the COVID-19 Pandemic
Hung, Christie , Gorelov, David, Abraham-Aggarwal, Kiran, Wilson, John , Gidumal, Sunder , Nebor, Ivanna, Adamson, Peter A. , Chernobilsky, Boris, Brissett, Anthony E., Frodel, John L., Gandhi, Parag, Mashkevich, Grigoriy, Moscatello, Augustine, Komashko, Nataliia, Patel, Samip, Abraham, Manoj Timothy, Tollefson, Travis , Abraham, Manoj T , Gorelov, David J., Abraham‐Aggarwal, Kiran , Nebor, Ivanna, Gray, Mingyang Liu , Moskowitz, Bruce, Tatum, Sherard A. , Tollefson, Travis T. , Winters, Ryan D.

Facial Plastic Surgery & Aesthetic Medicine | February 4, 2026 | Volume: No volume available | Issue: No issue available | Pages: No page available

10.1177/26893614251410543 Get It

Creating a Superiorly Based Pharyngeal Flap: Is Prominence of C1 Superior Enough, and Will Adenoid Pad Be in the Way?
Snodgrass, Taylor D. , Gilbert, Imani , Snodgrass, Taylor , Sitzman, Thomas J. , Chee-Williams, Jessica L. , Tollefson, Travis T. , Singh, Davinder , Perry, Jamie L.

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open | June 16, 2025 | Volume: 13 | Issue: 6 | Pages: e6797

10.1097/gox.0000000000006797 Get It

Background: Positioning the pharyngeal flap base high along the posterior pharyngeal wall is essential for optimizing speech outcomes. Objective data on where to place the flap base are lacking. Further, adenoid tissue can restrict cephalad positioning of the flap. This study aimed to improve the design of the pharyngeal flap by measuring the distance from the first cervical vertebrae (C1) to the palatal plane, and the adenoid depth in children undergoing evaluation for velopharyngeal insufficiency. Methods: This retrospective cross-sectional study analyzed magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of the velopharynx and measured the distance between C1 and the palatal plane, and the adenoid depth at the level of the palatal plane in millimeters. Results: Thirty-four patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean age at the time of MRI was 7.4 years (range: 3.9–11.9 y). The anterior tubercle of C1 was below the palatal plane in 97% (n = 33) of patients. On average, this landmark was 10.5 mm (SD = 5.0) below the palatal plane. Adenoid tissue was present at the level of the palatal plane in 91% (n = 31) of patients. Conclusions: Positioning the pharyngeal flap base at C1 is too low to aid with velopharyngeal closure. Further, adenoid tissue is frequently present at the level of velopharyngeal closure, limiting superior positioning of the pharyngeal flap base. When this occurs, surgeons should consider adenoidectomy before pharyngeal flap surgery. Preoperative MRI may be beneficial for planning pharyngeal flap positioning relative to C1 and assessing adenoid tissue at the palatal plane.
The State of Craniomaxillofacial Trauma Care in Low‐ and Middle‐Income Countries: A Scoping Review
Elwell, Zachary , Candelo, Estephanía , Srinivasan, Tarika , Zalaquett, Nader , Tuyishimire, Gratien, Ncogoza, Isaie , Jean-Gilles, Patrick, Legbo, J. N. , Tollefson, Travis T. , Zalaquett, Nader , Tuyishimire, Gratien , Ncogoza, Isaie , Legbo, Jacob Ndas , Tollefson, Travis , Shaye, David , Gomez, Estephania Candelo , Nuss, Sarah

OTO Open | August 29, 2024 | Volume: 8 | Issue: 3 | Pages: No page available

10.1002/oto2.70000 Get It

AbstractObjectiveThis scoping review aims to contribute a descriptive analysis of the craniomaxillofacial trauma (CMF trauma) literature in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs) to identify knowledge gaps, direct future research, and inform policy.Data SourcesPubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Review, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar from January 1, 2012 to December 10, 2023.Review MethodsThe Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA‐ScR) guided reporting, and the PRISMA flowchart documented database searches. Specific, predefined search terms and inclusion criteria were used for screening, and the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist was used for quality assessment. The search yielded 54 articles, with 13 meeting the inclusion criteria. Key findings were summarized and divided into 7 categories.ResultsThere were 10,420 patients (7739 [74.3%] male, 2681 [25.7%] female) with a male‐to‐female ratio of 2.9:1. The mean peak age of incidence of CMF trauma was 30.8 years, ranging from 20 to 40 years. Road traffic accidents were the leading cause (60.4%), followed by assault (27.2%) and falls (12.2%). The most common injuries were soft tissue injury (31.7%), isolated mandibular fracture (22.8%), and isolated middle‐third of mandible fracture (18.1%). The most common treatments were closed reduction and immobilization (29.5%), conservative management (27.6%), and open reduction and internal fixation (19.6%). Most patients (77.8%) experienced a treatment delay due to a lack of fixation materials (54.8%) or surgeon unavailability (35.7%).ConclusionCMF trauma remains a significant cause of global morbidity, yet there remains a lack of high‐quality, CMF trauma‐specific data in LMICs. Country‐specific investigations are required to enhance knowledge and inform novel interventions. Implementing policy change must be community‐specific and account for unique cultural barriers, attitudes, and behaviors to maximize patient care outcomes.
Surgery for Velopharyngeal Insufficiency Following Cleft Palate Repair: An Audit of Contemporary Practice and Proposed Schema of Techniques and Variations
Tse, Raymond , Sie, Kathleen C.Y. , Jackson, Oksana A. , Kirshner, R, Fisher, David M. , Arneja, Jugpal S. , Dahl, John P. , Soldanska, Magdalena, Tse, Raymond W , Jackson, Oksana A , Sitzman, Thomas J , Tollefson, Travis T. , Bly, Randall A. , Sitzman, Thomas J.

The Cleft Palate Craniofacial Journal | July 13, 2023 | Volume: 61 | Issue: 10 | Pages: 1721-1734

10.1177/10556656231181359 Get It

Objective Surgical treatment of velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI) includes a wide array of procedures. The purpose of this study was to develop a classification for VPI procedures and to describe variations in how they are performed. Design/participants/setting/outcomes: We completed an in-depth review of the literature to develop a preliminary schema that encompassed existing VPI procedures. Forty-one cleft surgeons from twelve hospitals across the USA and Canada reviewed the schema and either confirmed that it encompassed all VPI procedures they performed or requested additions. Two surgeons then observed the conduct of the procedures by surgeons at each hospital. Standardized reports were completed with each visit to further explore the literature, refine the schema, and delineate the common and unique aspects of each surgeon's technique. Results Procedures were divided into three groups: palate-based surgery; pharynx-based surgery; and augmentation. Palate-based operations included straight line mucosal incision with intravelar veloplasty, double-opposing Z-plasty, and palate lengthening with buccal myomucosal flaps. Many surgeons blended maneuvers from these three techniques, so a more descriptive schema was developed classifying the maneuvers employed on the oral mucosa, nasal mucosa, and muscle. Pharynx-based surgery included pharyngeal flap and sphincter pharyngoplasty, with variations in design for each. Augmentation procedures included palate and posterior wall augmentation. Conclusions A comprehensive schema for VPI procedures was developed incorporating intentional adaptations in technique. There was substantial variation amongst surgeons in how each procedure was performed. The schema may enable more specific evaluations of surgical outcomes and exploration of the mechanisms through which these procedures improve speech.
Multicenter Interrater Reliability in the Endoscopic Assessment of Velopharyngeal Function Using a Video Instruction Tool
Miller, C. L., Bly, Randall A. , Cofer, Shelagh A. , Dahl, John P. , Serres, Lianne M. de, Goudy, Steven L. , Hartzell, Larry D. , Jabbour, Noel , Kacmarysnki, Deborah, MacArthur, Carol J. , Messner, Anna H. , Milczuk, Henry A., Rastatter, Jeff C., Rosenthal, Laura H. Swibel , Scott, Andrew R. , Woolley, Audie L., Zdanski, Carlton J. , Zopf, Dave A., Sie, Kathleen C.Y. , Cofer, Shelagh, Miller, Craig, Tollefson, Travis T.

Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery | January 15, 2019 | Volume: 160 | Issue: 4 | Pages: 720-728

10.1177/0194599818822989 Get It

ObjectiveAssess interrater agreement of endoscopic assessment of velopharyngeal (VP) function before and after viewing the video instruction tool (VIT). We hypothesized improvement in interrater agreement using the Golding‐Kushner scale (GKS) after viewing the VIT.Study DesignProspective study.SettingMulti‐institutional.MethodsSixteen fellowship‐trained pediatric otolaryngologists who treat velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI) rated 50 video segments using the GKS before and after watching the VIT. Raters assessed gap size percentage and lateral pharyngeal wall (LPW), soft palate (SP), and posterior pharyngeal wall (PPW) movement. Intraclass correlation coefficient was estimated for these continuous measures. Raters also indicated the presence of a palatal notch, Passavant's ridge, and aberrant pulsations (categorical variables). Fleiss κ coefficient was used for categorical variables. Wilcoxon signed‐rank test was performed on the difference between the pre/post individual video ratings.ResultsReliability improved for all continuous variables after watching the instructional video. The improvement was significant for PPW (0.22‐0.30, P <. 001), SP (left: 0.63‐0.68, P <. 001 and right: 0.64‐0.68, P =. 001), and LPW (left: 0.49‐0.54, P =. 01 and right: 0.49‐0.54, P =. 09) but not significant for gap size (0.65‐0.69, P =. 36). Among categorical variables, agreement on Passavant's ridge significantly improved (0.30‐0.36, P =. 03).ConclusionExposure to a video instruction tool improves interrater agreement of endoscopic assessment of VP function. Significant improvement was observed in our primary end points, specifically posterior pharyngeal wall movement, soft palate movement, and lateral pharyngeal wall movement. There was less impact of the VIT on the interrater agreement of the categorical variables, palatal notch, Passavant's ridge, and aberrant pulsations.
Clinical Practice Guideline: Improving Nasal Form and Function after Rhinoplasty
Ishii, Lisa E. , Basura, Gregory J. , Abramson, Peter J., Chaiet, Scott R. , Davis, Kara S., Doghramji, Karl , Farrior, Edward H., Finestone, Sandra A., Murphy, Robert X., Park, John G. , Setzen, Michael, Strike, Deborah J., Walsh, Sandra A. , Warner, Jeremy P., Nnacheta, Lorraine C., Meister, Kara D. , Tollefson, Travis T. , Rosenfeld, Richard M. , Ishman, Stacey L. , Meister, Kara D

Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery | February 1, 2017 | Volume: 156 | Issue: S2 | Pages: No page available

10.1177/0194599816683153 Get It

ObjectiveRhinoplasty, a surgical procedure that alters the shape or appearance of the nose while preserving or enhancing the nasal airway, ranks among the most commonly performed cosmetic procedures in the United States, with >200,000 procedures reported in 2014. While it is difficult to calculate the exact economic burden incurred by rhinoplasty patients following surgery with or without complications, the average rhinoplasty procedure typically exceeds $4000. The costs incurred due to complications, infections, or revision surgery may include the cost of long‐term antibiotics, hospitalization, or lost revenue from hours/days of missed work.The resultant psychological impact of rhinoplasty can also be significant. Furthermore, the health care burden from psychological pressures of nasal deformities/aesthetic shortcomings, surgical infections, surgical pain, side effects from antibiotics, and nasal packing materials must also be considered for these patients. Prior to this guideline, limited literature existed on standard care considerations for pre‐ and postsurgical management and for standard surgical practice to ensure optimal outcomes for patients undergoing rhinoplasty. The impetus for this guideline is to utilize current evidence‐based medicine practices and data to build unanimity regarding the peri‐ and postoperative strategies to maximize patient safety and to optimize surgical results for patients.PurposeThe primary purpose of this guideline is to provide evidence‐based recommendations for clinicians who either perform rhinoplasty or are involved in the care of a rhinoplasty candidate, as well as to optimize patient care, promote effective diagnosis and therapy, and reduce harmful or unnecessary variations in care. The target audience is any clinician or individual, in any setting, involved in the management of these patients. The target patient population is all patients aged ≥15 years. The guideline is intended to focus on knowledge gaps, practice variations, and clinical concerns associated with this surgical procedure; it is not intended to be a comprehensive reference for improving nasal form and function after rhinoplasty. Recommendations in this guideline concerning education and counseling to the patient are also intended to include the caregiver if the patient is <18 years of age.Action StatementsThe Guideline Development Group made the following recommendations: (1) Clinicians should ask all patients seeking rhinoplasty about their motivations for surgery and their expectations for outcomes, should provide feedback on whether those expectations are a realistic goal of surgery, and should document this discussion in the medical record. (2) Clinicians should assess rhinoplasty candidates for comorbid conditions that could modify or contraindicate surgery, including obstructive sleep apnea, body dysmorphic disorder, bleeding disorders, or chronic use of topical vasoconstrictive intranasal drugs. (3) The surgeon, or the surgeon’s designee, should evaluate the rhinoplasty candidate for nasal airway obstruction during the preoperative assessment. (4) The surgeon, or the surgeon’s designee, should educate rhinoplasty candidates regarding what to expect after surgery, how surgery might affect the ability to breathe through the nose, potential complications of surgery, and the possible need for future nasal surgery. (5) The clinician, or the clinician’s designee, should counsel rhinoplasty candidates with documented obstructive sleep apnea about the impact of surgery on nasal airway obstruction and how obstructive sleep apnea might affect perioperative management. (6) The surgeon, or the surgeon’s designee, should educate rhinoplasty patients before surgery about strategies to manage discomfort after surgery. (7) Clinicians should document patients’ satisfaction with their nasal appearance and with their nasal function at a minimum of 12 months after rhinoplasty.The Guideline Development Group made recommendations against certain actions: (1) When a surgeon, or the surgeon’s designee, chooses to administer perioperative antibiotics for rhinoplasty, he or she should not routinely prescribe antibiotic therapy for a duration >24 hours after surgery. (2) Surgeons should not routinely place packing in the nasal cavity of rhinoplasty patients (with or without septoplasty) at the conclusion of surgery.The panel group made the following statement an option: (1) The surgeon, or the surgeon’s designee, may administer perioperative systemic steroids to the rhinoplasty patient.
Clinical Practice Guideline: Improving Nasal Form and Function after Rhinoplasty Executive Summary
Ishii, Lisa E. , Basura, Gregory J. , Abramson, Peter J., Chaiet, Scott R. , Davis, Kara S., Doghramji, Karl , Farrior, Edward H., Finestone, Sandra A., Murphy, Robert X., Park, John G. , Setzen, Michael, Strike, Deborah J., Walsh, Sandra A. , Warner, Jeremy P., Nnacheta, Lorraine C., Meister, Kara D. , Tollefson, Travis T. , Rosenfeld, Richard M. , Ishman, Stacey L. , Meister, Kara D

Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery | February 1, 2017 | Volume: 156 | Issue: 2 | Pages: 205-219

10.1177/0194599816683156 Get It

ObjectiveRhinoplasty, a surgical procedure that alters the shape or appearance of the nose while preserving or enhancing the nasal airway, ranks among the most commonly performed cosmetic procedures in the United States, with >200,000 procedures reported in 2014. While it is difficult to calculate the exact economic burden incurred by rhinoplasty patients following surgery with or without complications, the average rhinoplasty procedure typically exceeds $4000. The costs incurred due to complications, infections, or revision surgery may include the cost of long‐term antibiotics, hospitalization, or lost revenue from hours/days of missed work.The resultant psychological impact of rhinoplasty can also be significant. Furthermore, the health care burden from psychological pressures of nasal deformities/aesthetic shortcomings, surgical infections, surgical pain, side effects from antibiotics, and nasal packing materials must also be considered for these patients. Prior to this guideline, limited literature existed on standard care considerations for pre‐ and postsurgical management and for standard surgical practice to ensure optimal outcomes for patients undergoing rhinoplasty. The impetus for this guideline is to utilize current evidence‐based medicine practices and data to build unanimity regarding the peri‐ and postoperative strategies to maximize patient safety and to optimize surgical results for patients.PurposeThe primary purpose of this guideline executive summary is to provide evidence‐based recommendations for clinicians who either perform rhinoplasty or are involved in the care of a rhinoplasty candidate, as well as to optimize patient care, promote effective diagnosis and therapy, and reduce harmful or unnecessary variations in care. The target audience is any clinician or individual, in any setting, involved in the management of these patients. The target patient population is all patients aged ≥15 years. The guideline is intended to focus on knowledge gaps, practice variations, and clinical concerns associated with this surgical procedure; it is not intended to be a comprehensive reference for improving nasal form and function after rhinoplasty. Recommendations in this guideline concerning education and counseling to the patient are intended to include the caregiver if the patient is <18 years of age.Action StatementsThe Guideline Development Group made the following recommendations: (1) Clinicians should ask all patients seeking rhinoplasty about their motivations for surgery and their expectations for outcomes, should provide feedback on whether those expectations are a realistic goal of surgery, and should document this discussion in the medical record. (2) Clinicians should assess rhinoplasty candidates for comorbid conditions that could modify or contraindicate surgery, including obstructive sleep apnea, body dysmorphic disorder, bleeding disorders, or chronic use of topical vasoconstrictive intranasal drugs. (3) The surgeon, or the surgeon’s designee, should evaluate the rhinoplasty candidate for nasal airway obstruction during the preoperative assessment. (4) The surgeon, or the surgeon’s designee, should educate rhinoplasty candidates regarding what to expect after surgery, how surgery might affect the ability to breathe through the nose, potential complications of surgery, and the possible need for future nasal surgery. (5) The clinician, or the clinician’s designee, should counsel rhinoplasty candidates with documented obstructive sleep apnea about the impact of surgery on nasal airway obstruction and how obstructive sleep apnea might affect perioperative management. (6) The surgeon, or the surgeon’s designee, should educate rhinoplasty patients before surgery about strategies to manage discomfort after surgery. (7) Clinicians should document patient satisfaction with their nasal appearance and with their nasal function at a minimum of 12 months after rhinoplasty.The guideline development group made recommendations against certain actions: (1) When a surgeon, or the surgeon’s designee, chooses to administer perioperative antibiotics for rhinoplasty, he or she should not routinely prescribe antibiotic therapy for a duration >24 hours after surgery. (2) Surgeons should not routinely place packing in the nasal cavity of rhinoplasty patients (with or without septoplasty) at the conclusion of surgery.The panel group made the following statement an option: (1) The surgeon, or the surgeon’s designee, may administer perioperative systemic steroids to the rhinoplasty patient.