Patient Satisfaction following Structural versus Preservation Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review

Dorsal preservation rhinoplasty versus dorsal hump reduction: a randomized prospective study, functional and aesthetic outcomes

PURPOSE

To compare the functional and esthetic outcomes of dorsal preservation rhinoplasty (DPR) and conventional dorsal hump reduction (DHR) in primary rhinoplasty using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT).

METHODS

In our randomized prospective double-blinded clinical trial, 50 patients had dorsal nasal hump surgery between October 2021 and November 2022 in our tertiary referral center. All surgeries were done by the same surgeon. Patients were randomly assigned to two groups: Group (A): 25 patients had DPR, and group (B): 25 patients underwent DHR. Pre-operative and post-operative evaluations were conducted using standardized cosmesis and health nasal outcomes survey (SCHNOS), surgeons' rhinoplasty evaluation questionnaire (SREQ), and the CBCT.

RESULTS

Following an average of 7.22 ± 2.07 months, patients in both groups reported significantly higher levels of satisfaction, as measured by the SCHNOS score (p < 0.001) and the average of three SREQ scores (p < 0.001). These results align with the radiological analysis, which denoted an overall improvement in the average of both sides' internal nasal valve angle and cross-sectional area after surgery with (p = 0.001) and (p = 0.085), respectively, for the DPR group and with (p = 0.281) and (p = 0.014), respectively, for the DHR group. There was no statistically significant difference in outcomes between both groups (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Dorsal preservation is a viable alternative to conventional dorsal hump reduction in primary rhinoplasty. There was no difference in the functional and esthetic outcomes between both techniques, which were verified by radiological investigation.

Prospective Evaluation of Aesthetic and Functional Outcomes following Video-Assisted Rhino-Septoplasty

BACKGROUND

Conservative techniques have been developed in the field of rhinoplasty, focusing on limited tissue resection while emphasizing the reshaping of nasal structural elements.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to prospectively evaluate aesthetic and functional outcomes following Video-Assisted Rhino-Septoplasty (VARS) using validated tools.

METHODS

Patients' self-reported outcomes were assessed before and 6 months after surgery. Aesthetic evaluations used FACE-Q Rhinoplasty modules (FQRM) Satisfaction with Nose and Nostrils. Functional evaluations were performed with NOSE scores. T-tests were used to determine the significance of the change in scores before and after surgery. p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Fifty patients were included (sex ratio = 0.16, mean age = 30 y.o., 78% primary cases). All patients had associated septoplasties, and 32 had inferior turbinate reductions. Mean FQRM Nose scores were 28.1 ± 16.3 before vs. 83.4 ± 17.2/100 after surgery. Mean FQRM Nostrils scores were 61.5 ± 28.6 before vs. 85 ± 21/100 after surgery. Mean NOSE scores were 49.5 ± 36.3 before vs. 14.8 ± 16.6/100 after surgery. All p <0.001. We found no correlation between FQRM Nose and NOSE scores after surgery (ρ = -0.1553, IC95% (-0.41;0.12), p = 0.28).

CONCLUSION

Our study showed that VARS is an effective technique, yielding high patient satisfaction in both aesthetic and functional outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE II

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.

Structural Rhinoplasty as an Effective Surgical Approach for Frontonasal Dysplasia

Frontonasal dysplasia (FND), a rare congenital craniofacial disorder, primarily influences the development of midline craniofacial structures. A notable manifestation of this condition is nasal hypoplasia. This report details the treatment of a 19-year-old male patient diagnosed with FND accompanied by a severe case of nasal hypoplasia. The authors used structural rhinoplasty to achieve total nasal reconstruction. Albeit with some minor sequelae, the outcome of this surgery was markedly positive, enhancing both the cosmetic appearance and functional capacity of the nose. This case underscores the effectiveness of structural rhinoplasty as a feasible therapeutic approach for individuals suffering from FND and its associated nasal hypoplasia.

Functional and Aesthetic Outcomes of No-Dissection Nasal Dorsum Using Subdorsal Septal Excision in Preservation Rhinoplasty

BACKGROUND

Dorsal preservation (DP) caused privilege change in the concept of rhinoplasty and a promising superior functional and aesthetic transformation in rhinoplasty surgery. Avoiding dissection of the dorsal nasal bone and cartilage will leave the soft-tissue envelope intact, leading to a fine and smooth appearance, faster operation with less subsequent edema, and overall preservation of the dorsal aesthetic line.

METHODS

This prospective study included 113 patients who underwent DP rhinoplasty for nasal hump treatment with minimum dissection of nasal dorsum soft-tissue envelope. Results were evaluated using the Standardized Cosmesis and Health Nasal Outcomes Survey (SCHNOS).

RESULTS

The mean preoperative SCHNOS score was 7.21; the mean obstructive score was 2.95 ± 1.068 and the mean aesthetic score was 4.27 ± 0.771. The average lowering of the dorsal hump was 4.4 mm. Approximately 96% of patients showed improvement in the SCHNOS score after surgery, 86.7% (98 patients) showed improvement in the obstructive symptoms and 95.6% (108 patients) showed improvement in the aesthetic score. Complications were seen in 22.11% (most commonly residual hump in 13.27% of cases and dorsal indentation in 5.31%), bleeding was seen in 2.65%, and granuloma formation at the dorsal osteotomy site was seen in 0.88%. There was a very significant improvement in the aesthetic, obstructive, and overall SCHNOS score ( P = 0.000) for each parameter.

CONCLUSIONS

DP rhinoplasty is a safe and very effective procedure, with very low risk of complications. Most of the treated patients have improvement of the obstructive and aesthetic outcome after surgery.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, IV.

State of the Evidence for Preservation Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review

Preservation rhinoplasty encompasses a number of techniques that minimize disruption of the native cartilaginous and soft tissue nasal architecture. These techniques have gained popularity resulting in an increase in publications relevant to preservation rhinoplasty. However, many studies that present patient outcomes are of low-level evidence and do not incorporate validated patient-reported outcome measures. While these studies do consistently report positive outcomes, there are few high-level comparative studies that support the theoretical benefits of preservation relative to structural rhinoplasty. As contemporary preservation rhinoplasty techniques will continue to evolve and become incorporated into clinical practice, there will be the need for parallel emphasis on robust clinical studies to delineate the value of these methods.

Fixation of the Cartilaginous Vault with Barbed Suture in Closed-Approach High-Septal-Resection Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty

Fixation of the cartilaginous vault is an important maneuver in preservation rhinoplasty to reduce hump recurrences. This paper presents a cartilaginous vault fixation technique with a barbed suture. Forty-six patients who underwent closed-approach high-septal-resection dorsal preservation rhinoplasty between August 2019 and March 2020 were included in this retrospective study. According to the cartilaginous vault fixation sutures applied, the patients were divided into two main groups as follows: (1) barbed suture and (2) conventional suture. Standardized postoperative 1-month lateral view photographs were scanned for the presence of any degree of hump recurrence. The Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation (ROE) scale was applied at 12 months. Hump recurrence was detected in one patient in the barbed suture group (n = 21) and one patient in the conventional suture group (n = 25; p > 0.05). For the ROE scores and number of satisfied patients, no statistically significant difference was found between the barbed and conventional suture fixation techniques (p > 0.05). Fixation with barbed suture showed similar results to conventional suture fixation. Barbed sutures can be used for cartilaginous vault fixation, taking advantage of the ease of placement in closed rhinoplasty. This study reflects level of evidence IV.

Quality of Life (QoL) and Outcome After Preservation Rhinoplasty (PR) Using the Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation (ROE) Questionnaire-A Prospective Observational Single-Centre Study

BACKGROUND

Rhinoplasty is a challenging procedure, and the ultimate goal is not only to restore the function and youthful appearance, but also to improve the quality of life (QoL). Little is known about the QoL after preservation rhinoplasty (PR). The aim of this study was to assess patient satisfaction after PR by using a validated questionnaire.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients undergoing primary PR were included in this prospective cohort single-centre (private) study. Overall, 58 patients (41 female and 17 male patients, mean age 32 ± 9.7 years) were operated on between 2017 and 2021. Patient assessment regarding their outcome was evaluated before surgery and at final follow-up using a validated questionnaire (Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation Questionnaire = ROE). Subgroup analyses were performed between the ROE questions and radiological analysis by using the cone-beam computed tomography (CT) before surgery and at final follow-up.

RESULTS

After a mean follow-up of 19.7 ± 7.9 months (range = 1-50 months), a high overall patient satisfaction was observed (37.9 ± 9.2 vs. 81.25 ± 14.17, p < 0.0001). Subgroup analysis showed the highest improvement in nose appearance, breathing, and self-confidence after surgery. The improvement of subjective breathing (1.471 ± 0.90 vs. 3.1 ± 0.88; p<0.0001) goes in line with an overall improved internal nasal valve (INV) angle (19.88° ± 3.3° vs. 22.04° ± 4.1°, p = 0.0231).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed a high patient satisfaction after PR as evaluated by the ROE, which goes in line with aesthetics and function.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV

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 .

Combining Open Structural and Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty

There has been a resurgence in dorsal preservation rhinoplasty (DPR) caused by theoretic aesthetic and functional advantages compared with conventional hump takedown rhinoplasty. Classically, the push-down and let-down maneuvers have been described for management of the bony nasal vault. There have been a variety of modifications in the septal resection that is a requisite for dorsal lowering in DPR. Partial dorsal preservation techniques, including cartilage-only preservation, have also been described. Although several studies have reported aesthetic and functional success with a variety of techniques, few have used objective or patient-centered subjective measures.

120 Years of Dorsal Preservation in Rhinoplasty

Dorsal preservation techniques in rhinoplasty are experiencing a renaissance in recent years. New techniques and modifications to existing techniques are being described at an intensifying pace. Dorsal preservation, however, is not a new concept and was first described over 120 years ago. It is timely that we conduct a review of the key techniques and concepts of dorsal preservation in rhinoplasty that had been published over the past 120 years, at a moment in which we consider as a revival of this school of thought.