Treatment of severe @entity1415 in XXXX using a two-flap nasal closure method.

@entity1 @entity1415 @entity7319 @entity1884 @entity68
BACKGROUND: Nasal closure has been shown to effectively manage severe @entity1415 refractory to other treatments in @entity1 with @entity1884 ( @entity1884 ). The nasal closure procedure may be underutilized because of its surgical @entity7319 . METHODS: This work is a retrospective review of 13 @entity1884 @entity1 treated for severe @entity1415 with nasal closure between 2005 and 2013. Operating room (OR) time, need for revision surgery, preprocedure, and @entity1415 severity score (ESS), complete blood count values, and Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI) questionnaire results were collected for each @entity1 . The technique is described. We characterize a typical nasal closure @entity1 and compare outcomes based on our experience with the traditional 3-flap closure and a simplified 2-flap nasal closure procedure. RESULTS: The average candidate for nasal closure in this series had an ESS of 7.88, hemoglobin (Hgb) of 8.3 g/dL, and received multiple transfusions, @entity68 therapy, and cautery/coagulation procedures. Average ESS subsequent to nasal closure using the 2-flap method is 0.92 and mean GBI score is 56.3. Comparison of 5 @entity1 who underwent the traditional 3-flap nasal closure procedure and 8 @entity1 receiving the 2-flap nasal closure showed no significant difference in postoperative ESS or GBI metrics. Mean operating room times of the traditional and simplified methods were 3.12 hours and 1.44 hours (p = 0.0001). Mean time to first revision for 8 nasal closure @entity1 was 21.5 months. CONCLUSION: In short-term follow-up, the 2-flap procedure showed comparable effectiveness with significantly reduced complexity and operative time compared to the traditional nasal closure method.
