Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

A reliable method to avoid contamination during cartilage graft preparation in septorhinoplasty

  • Rhinology
  • Published:
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of the study is to determine the risk of contamination in the cartilage graft materials prepared on the swester table and those prepared in a sterile package, and to reveal a more reliable method by performing the microbiological examination of these materials.

Methods

Cartilages removed from the nasal septum were divided into four pieces. The first part (Sample A) was directly placed into the medium. Sample B was prepared by being crushed in a sterile package. Sample C was prepared on the auxiliary swester table, and Sample D was prepared on the main swester table actively used by surgery team. All samples were transferred in a 1 ml brain heart(BH) liquid medium. From each BH medium, 100 µl culture was performed on blood agar, eosin–methylene blue–lactose–sucrose agar and chocolate agar.

Results

Bacterial growth was detected in 2 of the samples A, in 4 of the samples B, in 24 of the samples C, and in 36 of the samples D. The number of patients with bacterial growth in the samples C and/or D despite no growth in the sample B was 35. When the samples A/B and C/D were compared in terms of bacterial growth, a significant difference was found in all matchings (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). 

Conclusion

These findings showed that preparation of the cartilage grafts on the swester table was extremely risky for microbiological contamination. Arslan and his colleagues suggest that preparing a graft material in a sterile package is extremely simple, cheap, and it also reduces contamination risk significantly.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cakmak O, Buyuklu F, Yilmaz Z, Sahin FI, Tarhan E, Ozluoglu LN (2005) Viability of cultured human nasal septum chondrocytes after crushing. Arch Facial Plast Surg 7(6):406–409

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Oreroğlu AR, Cakır B, Akan M (2014) Bone dust and diced cartilage combined with blood glue: a practical technique for dorsum enhancement. Aesthetic Plast Surg 38(1):90–94

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Erol OO (2000) The Turkish delight: a pliable graft for rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 105:2229–2241

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Baran CN, Tiftikcioglu YO, Baran NK (2005) The use of alloplastic materials in secondary rhinoplasties: 32 years of clinical experience. Plast Reconstr Surg 116(5):1502–1516

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kim SH, Tan KL, Lee SY, Kim DW, Shin S, Jin HR (2016) Effect of chlorhexidine pretreatment on bacterial contamination at rhinoplasty field. Springerplus 5(1):2116

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Binar M, Arslan F, Tasli H, Karakoc O, Kilic A, Aydin U (2015) An unusual cause of necrosis and nasal septum perforation after septoplasty: Enterobacter cloacae. New Microbes New Infect 16:8:150–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Dąbrowska-Bień J, Skarżyński PH, Gwizdalska I, Łazęcka K, Skarżyński H (2018) Complications in septoplasty based on a large group of 5639 patients. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 275(7):1789–1794

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Arslan F, Yıldız CA (2018) A practical suggestion for prepare dorsal onlay graft. J Craniofac Surg 29(4):344–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. EUCAST (2018) Clinical Breakpoints–Bacteria (V 8.1). Available at: http://www.eucast.org/clinical_breakpoints/

  10. Durmaz E, Dursun E, Iriz A, Mumcuoglu I, Eryilmaz A (2011) Changes in the ocular and nasal cultures in patients who had undergone septoplasty. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 40(6):493–498

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Warnke PH, Russo PA, Hopfenziz M, Kurz B, Becker ST, Sherry E, Springer I, Sivananthan S (2010) Antimicrobial peptide immunity protects human nasal and auricular cartilage against infection. J Craniofac Surg 21(1):198–201

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Won TB, Jin HR (2010) Revision rhinoplasty in Asians. Ann Plast Surg 65(4):379

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Abifadel M, Real JP, Servant JM, Banzet P (1990) Apropos of a case of infection after esthetic rhinoplasty. Ann Chir Plast Esthet 35(5):415–417

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kreutzer C, Hoehne J, Gubisch W, Rezaeian F, Haack S (2017) Free diced cartilage: a new application of diced cartilage grafts in primary and secondary rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 140(3):461–470

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Daniel RK, Calvert JW (2004) Diced cartilage grafts in rhinoplasty surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 113(7):2156–2171

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fatih Arslan.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Arslan, F., Ocal, D., Yildiz, C.A. et al. A reliable method to avoid contamination during cartilage graft preparation in septorhinoplasty. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 276, 1385–1390 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-019-05342-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-019-05342-7

Keywords

Navigation