Experience with use of Expanded Polytetrafluoroethylene(Gore-tex(R)) in Cosmetic Facial Surgery.
- Author:
Young Cheun YOO
1
;
Seung Il CHUNG
;
Won Yong YANG
;
Bub Min KO
Author Information
1. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, College of Medicine, KyungHee University, Seoul, Korea. khpsyc@hanmail.net
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Expanded polytetrafluoroehtylene(Gore-tex(R));
Soft tissue augmentation
- MeSH:
Cicatrix;
Follow-Up Studies;
Humans;
Plastics;
Retrospective Studies;
Transplants
- From:Journal of the Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons
2003;30(1):7-14
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
To date, for facial soft tissue augmentation, numerous implant materials have been used, including autogenous, homogenous, and alloplastic grafts. Among these, the porous material, Gore-tex(R) has a pore (0.5-30 microns, average 22 microns) which allows sufficient but limited soft tissue ingrowth to anchor implants, but not so much to make removal difficult or destructive to adjacent structures. In addition, this material has some advantage: non-carcinogenic, non-allergic, less capsule formation and reduced chance of infection due to high vascularity. In the past years Gore-tex(R) has found multiple applications in facial plastic and reconstructive surgery. However this alloplastic material can be associated with potentially severe complications and side effects such as soft tissue reaction, infection, extrusion, exposure, etc. There have been also adverse criticism of Gore-tex(R) : relative difficulties in postoperative removal, in carving implant, higher infection and extrusion rates in scarred tissue and thicker implant as well as postoperative volume reduction. In order to analyze results depending on the implantation site, the presence of scar on recipient site, thickness and type of implant, a retrospective chart review of 56 patients(69 cases) was undertaken of all patients who underwent facial soft tissue augmentation with Gore-tex(R) graft from November 1998 to November 2001 in a wide variety of situations. All cases were categorized as either primary(normal recipient site) or secondary(scarred recipient site) cases and the thickness of each graft used in millimeters was recorded. Postoperative follow up revealed a stable implant material with no major complications relating to the graft material and no differences in developing complications according to the implantation site, the presence of scar, thickness and type of implant. All patients were highly satisfied with their results.
