xRead - Facial Reconstruction Following Mohs Micrographic Surgery

Joseph et al

54

REFERENCES

effect on tip surgery outcomes. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2011;144(4):522–7. 11. Lessard M-L, Daniel RK. Surgical anatomy of septo rhinoplasty. Arch Otolaryngol 1985;111(1):25–9. 12. Michelson LN, Peck GC, Kuo H-R, et al. The quanti fication and distribution of nasal sebaceous glands using image analysis. Aesthetic Plast Surg 1996; 20(4):303–9. 13. Griesman B. Muscles and cartilages of the nose from the standpoint of a typical rhinoplasty. Arch Otolaryngol 1944;39(4):334–41. 14. Gonzalez-Ulloa M, Castillo A, Stevens E, et al. Pre liminary study of the total restoration of the facial skin. Plast Reconstr Surg (1946) 1954;13(3):151–61. 15. Burget GC, Menick FJ. The subunit principle in nasal reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 1985;76(2): 239–47. 16. Noel W, Duron JB, Jabbour S, et al. Should we consider the hemi-tip as a proper aesthetic subunit in a nasal reconstruction? J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2017;70(8):1112–7. 17. Goldminz D, Bennett RG. Cigarette smoking and flap and full-thickness graft necrosis. Arch Dermatol 1991;127(7):1012–5. 18. Burget GC. Modification of the subunit principle. Arch Facial Plast Surg 1999;1(1):16–8. 19. Walike JW, Larrabee WF. The “note flap”. Arch Oto laryngol 1985;111(7):430–3. 20. Zitelli JA. The bilobed flap for nasal reconstruction. Arch Dermatol 1989;125(7):957. 21. Burget GC, Menick FJ. Nasal support and lining: the marriage of beauty and blood supply. Plast Reconstr Surg 1989;84(2):189–202. 22. Menick FJ. A new modified method for nasal lining: the Menick technique for folded lining. J Surg Oncol 2006;94(6):509–14.

1. Dey JK, Ishii M, Boahene KDO, et al. Impact of facial defect reconstruction on attractiveness and nega tive facial perception. Laryngoscope 2015. https:// doi.org/10.1002/lary.25130. 2. Godoy A, Ishii M, Dey J, et al. Facial lesions nega tively impact affect display. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2013;149(3):377–83. 3. Godoy A, Ishii M, Byrne PJ, et al. How facial lesions impact attractiveness and perception: differential ef fects of size and location. Laryngoscope 2011; 121(12):2542–7. 4. Roxbury C, Ishii M, Godoy A, et al. Impact of crooked nose rhinoplasty on observer perceptions of attractiveness. Laryngoscope 2012;122(4):773–8. 5. Sorta-Bilajac I, Muzur A. The nose between ethics and aesthetics: sushruta’s legacy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;137(5):707–10. 6. Menick FJ. Nasal reconstruction art and practice. Edinburgh (Scotland): Mosby/Elsevier; 2009. Avail able at: https://www.clinicalkey.com/dura/browse/ bookChapter/3-s2.0-C20090375169. Accessed March 17, 2018. 7. Baker SR. SpringerLink (Online service). Principles of nasal reconstruction. New York: Springer Scien ce 1 Business Media, LLC; 2011. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-89028-9. Ac cessed February 5, 2018. 8. Baker SR. Local flaps in facial reconstruction. Phila delphia: Elsevier/Saunders; 2014. Available at: https:// www.clinicalkey.com/dura/browse/bookChapter/3-s2. 0-C20120004012. Accessed February 5, 2018. 9. Oneal RM, Beil RJ, Schlesinger J. Surgical anatomy of the nose. Clin Plast Surg 1996;23(2):195–222. 10. Cho GS, Kim JH, Yeo N-K, et al. Nasal skin thickness measured using computed tomography and its