The choice should be made according to the different conditions and needs of patients.4%, but no cases of swelling were exposed (P <0.0%, significantly higher than the expanded PTFE expanded the removal rate of 3.[Abstract] Objective To systematically evaluate the use of solid silicone implants and expanded polytetrafluoroethylene implants for simple rhinoplasty.4%, while the expanded PTFE no exposed cases (P ＜ 0. The Department of Plastic Surgery, the 1st Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University,Hangzhou 310000, China [Abstract] Objective To systematical evaluate the usage of solid silicone prosthesis and expanded PTFE prosthesis on simple augmentation rhinoplasty.Results Silicone prosthesis exposure rate was ; silicone prosthesis infection rate was 2. Methods The computer searched the MEDLINE (1966~2010) literature database, collected all the clinical reports of rhinoplasty using biological materials, and performed Meta analysis for systematic evaluation. Methods Used computer to search MEDLINE literature database (1966 to 2010), to collect all the relevant clinical reports of using biological materials on augmentation rhinoplasty , then using the Meta analysis to evaluate the system.9% (P <0.05).9% (P ＜ 0.05); the infection rate of silicone prosthesis was 2.05); The removal rate of silicone prosthesis was 6.3%, expanded PTFE expanded . Conclusion Biological material brings new progress for the development of augmentation rhinoplasty.8%, the difference was not significant (P ＞ 0. As each expanded expanded PTFE and silicone prosthesis has advantages and disadvantages, so different situations should be based on patient needs for adaptive selection.[Document Identification Code] B [Article Number] 1673-9701 (2012) 06-0118-03 The systematic evaluation of the merits of using solid silicone prosthesis and expanded PTFE prosthesis on simple augmentation rhinoplasty WANG Ling1 ZHAO Weixi2 XIAO Wei2 XU PTFE BBQ Grill Mats Jinghong2 SHI Tiemei1 1.The Department of Plastic Surgery, Xinchang People's Hospital in Zhejiang Province, Xinchang 312500, China; expanded polytetrafluoroethylene; rhinoplasty [Chinese Library Classification Number] R765.05); silicone prosthesis removal was 6.0%, which was significantly higher than the removal rate of bulging 3.8 percent infection rate, the difference was not significant (P ＞ 0. Results The external exposure rate of silicone prosthesis was 3. Conclusion Biological materials have brought new progress to the development of rhinoplasty, and expanded and silicone prostheses have their own advantages and disadvantages.
