RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: The underlying principles of preservation rhinoplasty (PR) center around maintaining the soft tissue envelope, dorsum, and alar cartilage through surgical manipulations and tip suture techniques. In particular, the let-down (LD) and push-down (PD) techniques have been described, although reports of indications and outcomes in the literature are sparse. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed using search terms "preservation" OR "let down" OR "push down" AND "rhinoplasty" on PubMed, Cochrane, SCOPUS, and EMBASE databases. Patient demographic information, operative details, and surgical outcomes were recorded. Sub-cohorts for patients who underwent LD and PD techniques were analyzed utilizing Fischer's exact test for categorical variables and Student's t test for continuous variables. RESULTS: Overall, there were 5967 PR patients in 30 studies in the final analysis, with 307 patients in the PD cohort and 529 patients in the LD cohort. The Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation Questionnaire showed a significant increase of patient satisfaction after PR compared to before PR (62.13 vs 91.14; p < 0.001). There was a significantly lower rate of residual dorsal hump or recurrence of 1.3% (n = 4) in the PD when compared to 4.6% (n = 23) in LD cohorts (p = 0.02). The revision rate of PD (0%, n = 0) was also significantly lower than that of LD (5.0%, n = 25) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Based on these published articles, it seems that preservation rhinoplasty is safe and efficacious procedure with improved dorsal aesthetic lines, reduced dorsal contour irregularities, and claimed excellent patient satisfaction. In particular, the PD technique has fewer reported complications and revisions than LD approach, although PD is often indicated in patients with smaller dorsal humps. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Asunto(s)
Rinoplastia , Humanos , Rinoplastia/métodos , Estudios de Seguimiento , Resultado del Tratamiento , Cartílagos Nasales/cirugía , Satisfacción del Paciente , Estética , Nariz/cirugía , Tabique Nasal/cirugía , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Receptive anal intercourse (RAI) is commonly practiced among individuals of all sexual orientations. However, negative stigmatization by society and health care professionals leads to the underreporting or this practice. AIM: We sought to assess and describe the subjective role of the prostate as a pleasure center in participants with diverse RAI experiences. The secondary aim was to describe nonprostatic areas within the anorectal region that produce erotic sensation and/or pain. METHODS: The exploratory sequential multimethod study design included focus groups and semistructured interviews with 30 individuals with prostates who had engaged in RAI. We used graphic elicitation of natal male anatomy to enhance visualization and assess participant perspectives. OUTCOMES: The main outcome of interest was the identification of anatomic locations of erogenous sensation and pain during RAI. RESULTS: Among the participants (median age 38, range 24-77 years), most participants (90%) identified as cisgender male. Three major themes emerged within the motivations for RAI, including (1) deriving intrinsic pleasure, (2) providing both pleasure for a partner and a way to improve intimacy/connection, and (3) an inability to be the insertive partner due to physical or mental challenges. The data suggest that the anorectal region produces a variety of erogenous sensations which participants find pleasurable. Overall, 2 major areas of erogenous sensation occur along the anterior rectal wall and within the anus. Within the context of RAI, 2 distinct categories of pain emerged, including pain with insertion and pain at other times. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Understanding where erogenous sensation originates for each individual may predict sexual functioning after various surgical interventions. Timing and location of pain may aid in further characterizing anodyspareunia. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: Our study utilized a sequential design (from focus groups to interviews) with diverse RAI experiences, especially regarding age, geographic location, and prostate pathology. We included individuals of diverse gender identities, but too few to evaluate these groups independently from cisgender men. CONCLUSION: People with prostates experience pleasure in multiple areas during RAI. Contrary to some lay literature, the prostate region is not the subjective pleasure center for all individuals. Timing and location of pain during RAI may inform areas for intervention. Providing a language for pleasure and pain during RAI may improve communication between not only sexual partners but also clinicians and patients.