Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the anatomical suitability of the philtrum fasciocutaneous advancement flap (PFCAF) for columellar reconstruction and its clinical applicability in revision rhinoseptoplasty and nasal reconstruction. METHODS: A descriptive study was conducted, comprising two components: (i) an anatomical analysis of 115 healthy adults to determine the feasibility of the philtrum as a donor site based on craniofacial measurements, and (ii) a clinical study of eight patients who underwent columellar reconstruction using a PFCAF. Sex-based differences were analyzed. To explore a potential dual benefit (reconstruction plus aesthetic improvement), residual philtrum length after hypothetical advancement was estimated, considering 11-13 mm in women and 13-15 mm in men as aesthetically favorable. RESULTS: Mean philtrum length was greater in men than in women (16.27 ± 3.9 mm vs. 14.84 ± 2.86 mm; p < 0.05). In 91.9% of individuals, philtrum area exceeded the combined area required to reconstruct the columellar and footplate polygons (p < 0.05). Based on anatomical simulations, approximately 25% of subjects would be expected to remain within the predefined aesthetic range after advancement. Clinically, all eight PFCAF procedures were completed in a single stage with no flap necrosis, infection, or dehiscence and with satisfactory restoration of columellar coverage and projection. CONCLUSION: PFCAF is a versatile and reliable single-stage option for columellar reconstruction in revision rhinoseptoplasty. Anatomical data support broad applicability, and the clinical series demonstrates safety and effective restoration of columellar coverage; careful preoperative assessment is required to optimize functional and aesthetic outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hoyos‐Cortés et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: