Get access

Defect closure in the paranasal region: an enduring challenge

Authors

  • Stefan Riml MD,

    Corresponding author
    1. Department for Plastic, Aesthetic and Reconstructive Surgery, Academic Hospital Feldkirch, Feldkirch, Austria
    • Correspondence

      Stefan Riml, MD

      Department for Plastic, Aesthetic and Reconstructive Surgery

      Academic Hospital Feldkirch

      Carinagasse 47, A-6807 Feldkirch

      Austria

      E-mail: stefan.riml@tele2.at

    Search for more papers by this author
  • Lorenz Larcher MD,

    1. Department for Plastic, Aesthetic and Reconstructive Surgery, Academic Hospital Feldkirch, Feldkirch, Austria
    2. Section of Plastic, Aesthetic and Reconstructive Surgery, General Hospital Linz, Linz, Austria
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Martin Grohmann MD,

    1. Department for Plastic, Aesthetic and Reconstructive Surgery, Academic Hospital Feldkirch, Feldkirch, Austria
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Peter Kompatscher MD

    1. Department for Plastic, Aesthetic and Reconstructive Surgery, Academic Hospital Feldkirch, Feldkirch, Austria
    Search for more papers by this author

  • Conflict of interest: The authors have no financial interest to declare in relation to the content of this article.

Abstract

Background

The paranasal region constitutes a demanding issue for the reconstructive surgeon. Its complex anatomy, with concavity in close contact with convexity, and a high density of functional and aesthetically important facial components demands specific concern. Due to such complexity, numerous procedures for the reconstruction of paranasal defects have been published, including skin grafts and flaps in random pattern or axial style from the glabella, upper lid, nasal root, or cheek.

Objectives

In this review, we recall classical reconstructive procedures and compare them with innovative procedures that could possibly gain importance in the following years.

Methods

We contrast the pros and cons concerning donor site morbidity, surgical elaborateness, and functional and aesthetic outcome, and substantiate our findings with photographic results from our own patient material.

Results and Conclusion

The reconstruction of paranasal defects remains a challenge; nevertheless, the growing toolbox of reconstructive instruments facilitates a perfect reconstructive result.

Ancillary