Outcomes of Combined Anterior Septal Reconstruction and Dorsal Hump Reduction

Analysis of the Effectiveness of Anterior Septal Reconstruction in Asians

Background: Although anterior septal reconstruction (ASR) is effective, it is less commonly employed in Asian patients compared with the septal extension graft technique, even in cases of severe antero-caudal septal deviation. Objective: To compare airflow and patient perceptions after ASR in patients of Korean descent with caudal septal deviations and external nasal deformities, we considered the potential tendency of their septal cartilage to be smaller and less robust compared with that of Caucasians. The measurements were conducted using acoustic rhinometry and patient-reported outcomes. Methods: We analyzed 103 patients using preoperative and 3-month postoperative assessments: Korean version of the Standardized Cosmesis and Health Nasal Outcomes Survey (K-SCHNOS), obstructive (SCHNOS-O), and cosmetic (SCHNOS-C) scores, and minimal cross-sectional area (MCA) measured by acoustic rhinometry. Results: Among 103 patients (mean age 33.36 years, median age 32 years, age range 17-70 years, 77 men [75%], and 26 women [25%]), the average follow-up period for the patients was 264.6 days (median 202 days and range 13-1540 days), SCHNOS-O scores improved significantly from 64.02 ± 4.89 to 19.31 ± 4.45 after ASR (p < 0.001), as did SCHNOS-C scores, improving from 60.61 ± 7.71 to 14.25 ± 4.66 (p < 0.001). MCA increased from 0.30 ± 0.16 cm2 to 0.56 ± 0.38 cm2 (p < 0.001). Conclusions: As measured by MCA and SCHNOS scores at 3 months postoperatively, ASR proves valuable for correcting antero-caudal septal deviations and nasal deformities in Asians, despite the tendency of their septal cartilage to be smaller and less strong compared with that of Caucasians.

Dorsal Preservation versus Component Dorsal Hump Reduction Rhinoplasty: An Assessment of Patient-reported Outcomes

Background

The literature on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) discussing dorsal preservation rhinoplasty (DPR) and component dorsal hump reduction (CDHR) is scarce. This study aims to fill the gap in PROs between these techniques.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted to investigate PROs of DPR and CDHR. A proportion meta-analysis was conducted using Stata statistical software.

Results

A total of 25 studies met our inclusion criteria, pooling 1706 participants, with 13 studies on CDHP and 12 studies on DPR. Overall satisfaction rates were high, varying from 84% to 100% across studies. A subgroup analysis revealed that both techniques exhibited equally high satisfaction with no statistical differences (P = 0.18). A random-effects model revealed that about two of 100 treated patients underwent revisions across our cohort (95% interquartile range: 0-4). Notably, the CDHR technique was associated with a significant 53.7-point reduction in the Standardized Cosmesis and Health Nasal Outcomes Survey (SCHNOS)-cosmetic domain [95% confidence interval (CI): -62.7 to -44.8, P < 0.001], along with a meaningful improvement in SCHNOS-obstructive scores by -27.3 points (95% CI: -50.5 to -4.04, P = 0.02). Conversely, the DPR was linked to a 55.3-point reduction in the SCHNOS-cosmetic domain (95% CI: -60.7 to -49.9, P < 0.001), and a -19.5 point change in the SCHNOS-obstructive domain (95% CI: -27.9 to -11.1, P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Although PROs are comparable, the literature suggests that CDHR outcomes may be better than DPR in alleviating obstructive symptoms, potentially offering an evidence-based choice for addressing functional concerns in rhinoplasty.

Effects of Functional Rhinoplasty on Nasal Obstruction: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Functional rhinoplasty (FRP) is used to improve nasal ventilation by correcting problems with the nasal valves. It has not been systematically reviewed on a large scale.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted in the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases to identify studies evaluating nasal obstruction before and after functional rhinoplasty in patients with nasal valve problems.

RESULTS

A total of 57 cohorts from 43 studies involving 2024 patients were included in the current meta-analysis. The Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) scores indicated significant improvement in nasal obstruction at the 1-month follow-up (WMD = 38.12; 95% CI, 29.15-47.10; I²= 83.6%; P = 0.00), 3-month follow-up (WMD = 48.40; 95% CI, 43.16-53.64; I²= 69.1%; P = 0.00), 6-month follow-up (WMD = 44.35; 95% CI, 36.65-52.04; I²= 96.6%; P = 0.00), 12-month follow-up (WMD=43.07; 95% CI, 26.56-59.58; I²= 97.9%; P = 0.00), and the last follow-up (WMD = 46.90; 95% CI, 43.92-49.88; I²= 95.9%; P = 0.00) with respect to the preoperative baseline. The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores indicated a similar trend at the 1-month follow-up (WMD = 4.68; 95% CI, 3.79-5.57; I²= 86.8%; P = 0.00), 3-month follow-up (WMD = 4.46; 95% CI, 3.19-5.74; I²= 93.3%; P = 0.00), 6-month follow-up (WMD = 4.91; 95% CI, 4.04-5.78; I²= 88%; P = 0.00) and last follow-up (WMD = 4.22; 95% CI, 3.12-5.32; I²= 97.1%; P = 0.00). Nasal obstruction was obviously relieved through rhinomanometry (SMD=0.56; 95% CI, 0.27-0.84; I²= 0.0%; P = 0.00) but not through peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) (SMD=-1.51; 95% CI, -3.10 to 0.07; I²= 98.9%; P = 0.09).

CONCLUSION

FRP may have a positive effect on nasal obstruction caused by nasal valve problems. Broader and well-designed studies are needed to shed more light on the relationships in this area.

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 .

Assessment of Different Middle Vault Reconstruction Techniques in Rhinoplasty from Multiple Patient-Reported Outcome Measures

It is important to assess the patient satisfaction with shape and function by patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) following structural or dorsal preservation rhinoplasty (DPR) techniques on the middle nasal vault. To analyze the results of different middle vault rhinoplasty techniques with multiple PROMs and compare their differences according to the findings of PROMs. Four different techniques were performed for the middle vault: spreader graft, L-strut graft, DPR with high strip (DPRwHS), DPR with low strip. The outcomes were evaluated preoperatively, 2 and 12 months postoperatively with the following PROMs: Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE), Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation, and Standardized Cosmesis and Health Nasal Outcomes Survey. This study included 129 patients. All techniques provided significant improvements in all PROMs (p < 0.001), except DPRwHS in NOSE. Between postoperative short- and longer-term, no significant differences were observed in DPR groups (p > 0.05), unlike structural techniques. In this comparative study of different middle nasal vault rhinoplasty techniques, we did not detect a difference in the improvement of the patient-reported outcomes of DPR techniques from as early as 2 months to 1 year postoperative.

Treatment of the Crooked Nose

The crooked nose is a challenging esthetic and functional problem. The surgeon must carefully evaluate baseline facial asymmetry as well as whether deviation stems from the upper third, middle third, or lower third of the nose. Surgical intervention should be tailored accordingly, with techniques geared toward addressing each deviated section. Modified dorsal preservation techniques represent a newer means to address deviations. Operative results must be measured, ideally through patient-reported outcomes measures, to quantify overall success.

Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty: Method and Outcomes of the Modified Subdorsal Strip Method

There has been particular recent interest in dorsal preservation rhinoplasty techniques because of claims of superior functional and aesthetic results relative to conventional hump reductions. The septum in dorsal preservation rhinoplasty is managed in a variety of ways with differences largely based on the location of septal excision (subdorsal resection, midseptal resection, and inferior septal resection). The technical considerations of a modified subdorsal strip method using a structural preservation technique are described. This technique maintains a subdorsal and caudal strut of cartilage. Patient-reported measures demonstrate significantly improved functional and aesthetic outcomes postoperatively with this procedure.