A Comparison of the Aesthetics Outcomes and Respiratory Side Effects of the Use of Spreader Flap and Spreader Graft Techniques in Open Rhinoplasty

Comparison of the Effects of Spreader Graft Versus Spreader Flap on Nasal Valve Angle in Open Approach Rhinoplasty

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the spreader graft and flap techniques, which are used in nasal valve surgery, based on measurements of nasal valve angles using computed tomography.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

In this retrospective study, all patients' right and left internal nasal valve angles were measured from coronal computed tomography images taken preoperatively and in the third postoperative month. A paired t-test and independent t-test were used to compare continuous numerical variables.

RESULTS

There were 52 patients with 104 valves in the spreader flap group and 54 patients with 108 valves in the spreader graft group, with a mean age of 27.76 ± 8.16 years. The angles were found to be statistically significantly higher in the postoperative period (p<0.001) in all patients. While the angles did not differ significantly between the flap and graft groups in the preoperative period, they were significantly higher in the flap group in the postoperative period (p<0.001).

DISCUSSION

It is essential to preserve nasal valve function in rhinoplasty. The findings show that a spreader flap is superior to a spreader graft, although both techniques increase internal nasal valve function.

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 .

Spreader Graft vs Spreader Flap in Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Aesthetic and Functional Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Insufficient support of the nasal mid-vault during rhinoplasty can cause significant complications. Accordingly, surgeons have recently paid much more attention to the preservation of nasal patency. The spreader graft is the gold standard technique for the reconstruction of nasal mid-vault.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to compare the spreader graft and spreader flap in terms of aesthetic and functional outcomes.

METHODS

An inclusive search was performed with PubMed/Medline, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library databases up to April 2021. Multiple aesthetic and functional factors, including dorsal aesthetic lines restoration, satisfaction rate, internal nasal valve angle improvement, nasal obstruction symptom evaluation scale, and active anterior rhinomanometry were evaluated. Also, a meta-analysis was performed on the included articles that provided adequate data for mentioned factors.

RESULTS

After excluding papers that did not conform with the selection criteria, 10 articles with a total sample size of 567 cases with a mean age of 27.7 years (range, 18-65 years) were finally included. Analysis of the data revealed no statistically significant difference between the spreader graft and spreader flap techniques in terms of dorsal aesthetic lines restoration, internal nasal valve angle improvement, nasal obstruction symptom evaluation scale, and anterior rhinomanometry.

CONCLUSIONS

However, in terms of satisfaction rate, the analyzes indicated that spreader graft has significantly superior aesthetic outcomes. Generally, in case of appropriately selected patients, there is no statistically significant difference between spreader graft and spreader flap techniques in terms of aesthetic and functional outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

Role of spreader flaps in primary rhinoplasty, functional and aesthetic outcomes: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The standard treatment for reconstructing the middle vault of the nose is to use spreader grafts. Recently, an alternative technique using spreader flaps has become widely accepted.

METHODOLOGY

A literature search was performed in ΜEDLINE, Science Direct, the Cochrane Library and multiple trial registries. The systematic review included studies evaluating the effectiveness of spreader flaps, with or without comparison to the spreader graft technique, in patients who had undergone primary rhinoplasty.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies with a total of 500 patients met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed systematically. All studies measured breathing function improvement. Additionally, aesthetic improvement/satisfaction was evaluated in seven studies. The use of spreader flaps seems to improve breathing function, as seen in twelve out of thirteen studies. Furthermore, the studies assessing the aesthetic aspect of a primary rhinoplasty showed that spreader flaps can provide satisfactory results. The comparison between spreader flaps and spreader grafts showed similar results in most studies dealing with this topic in both the breathing function improvement and aesthetic improvement/satisfaction domains.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is the first systematic review assessing the functional and aesthetic outcomes of spreader flaps in primary rhinoplasty, and it shows encouraging results comparable to those of spreader grafts.

Complications Associated with Spreader Grafts and Spreader Flaps: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Spreader grafts and spreader flaps are one of the most common techniques utilized in rhinoplasty surgeries. The aim of this study was to determine the complications, satisfaction, and revision rates associated with spreader grafts and spreader flaps and to compare these two modalities.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PRISMA guidelines were followed for conducting this systematic review. The authors searched the literature systematically for pertinent materials in PubMed/Medline and Google Scholar. Inclusion criteria of this search included: randomized and non-randomized clinical trials, cohorts, and case series with more than 5 participants on rhinoplasty using spreader grafts or spreader flaps with detailed report either on complications, revision, and satisfaction rates. Furthermore, exclusion criteria included: any cadaveric or non-human study, case reports, technical notes, and review articles.

RESULTS

The initial literature search yielded a total of 193 studies. Following screening each paper and implementing the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 40 articles were chosen. In the spreader graft group, from 21 studies reporting complications, 6 of them reported no complication. The most common complications were nasal obstruction, inverted V deformity and open roof deformity, deviation, and infection. In the spreader flap group, from 6 studies reporting any existing complications, 1 reported no complications. Five other studies reported some degree of complications. In terms of revision rate, 10 patients (0.62%) underwent revision surgery after spreader graft placement, while only 2 patients (0.35%) revised surgically in the spreader flap group.

CONCLUSION

These two methods seem to have no significant difference in terms of complication rates, and both are recommended as a choice in middle vault reconstruction when each of their clinical use is indicated.

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.

The Safety and Efficacy of Spreader Grafts and Autospreaders in Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the evidence of surgical outcomes and complications of spreader grafts and autospreader flaps in the context of middle vault reconstruction after dorsal hump removal.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were based on the population, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) framework. Medline (via PubMed), EMBASE, Cinahl, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for Clinical and observational studies published in peer-reviewed academic journals with abstracts available that reported rhinoplasty employing either spreader graft or autospreader flap techniques and were published prior to March, 2021.

RESULTS

Fifty-two of 1129 relevant studies were included in the qualitative analysis. Thirty-four studies (65.4%) were related to spreader graft (SG), 10 (21.1%) studies of autospreader flap (AF) alone and 8 (13.5%) studies involving both grafts. Meta-analysis was performed on 17 studies reporting change in NOSE scores, with pooled effect of - 23.9 (95% CI, - 26.7 to - 21.1) points. High heterogeneity with I² = 99%. Summary data showed no differences between groups, AF group versus no graft (p = 0.7578), AF versus SF group (p = 0.9948), and SG group versus no graft (p = 0.6608).

CONCLUSION

Based on available data, change in NOSE scores after rhinoplasty was similar in procedures that used spreader graft only or autospreader flap only.

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.

Evaluation of the use of Different Spreader Techniques in Primary Open Septorinoplasty in Terms of Nasal and Olfactory Functions

BACKGROUND

In this study, the authors aimed to investigate the use of spreader and determine the efficacy and superiority of different spreader techniques in septorhinoplasty in terms of nasal and olfactory functions.

METHODS

A total of 60 patients who had undergone septorhinoplasty with the open technique were included in the study. In addition to open septorhinoplasty, 20 patients also underwent bilateral spreader graft placement and 20 bilateral spreader flap placement. For the remaining 20 patients, open septorhinoplasty was performed without spreader grafts or flaps. The patients completed the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) scale consisting of five questions, and the Brief Smell Identification Test was used to detect olfactory dysfunction.

RESULTS

The preoperative mean NOSE score of all patients was 10.87 (1-18), while the postoperative mean value was 1.83 (0-10). The preoperative mean olfactory score was 6.23 ± 2.20 in all patients while it was 7.33 ± 1.75 postoperatively. There was a statistically significant difference between the preoperative and postoperative NOSE and olfactory scores in all patients, but no statistically significant difference was observed between the three groups.

CONCLUSION

Spreader graft or flap techniques used in septorhinoplasty are safe in terms of nasal obstruction and olfactory function, and there is no statistically significant difference between them.