Does cosmetic rhinoplasty affect nose function?

Airflow Considerations and the Effect of Webster's Triangle in Reduction Rhinoplasty

BACKGROUND

Reduction rhinoplasties, regardless of the methods used (structural or preservation), can cause a reduction in the internal nasal volume, which may lead to breathing problems. In 1977, Webster proposed preserving a little triangle in the beginning of the lower lateral osteotomy line to prevent breathing problem. However, its importance is still controversial.

OBJECTIVES

and methods: This prospective randomized controlled study (level of evidence 1) included 46 patients without nasal breathing problem. High-to-low (Webster's triangle preservation) osteotomy (control group, n = 23) and low-to-low osteotomy (study group, n = 23) were performed. All operations were performed according to the proposed volumetric rhinoplasty steps (examination/measurement, prevention and treatment). Nasal obstruction symptom evaluation (NOSE) test, visual analog scale, acoustic rhinometry, rhinomanometry, peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF), and three-dimensional measurements were performed in all patients. Breathing tests were repeated before and 6 months after surgery with and without xylometazoline administration.

RESULTS

No statistically significant difference in NOSE and visual analog scale scores was found between the two groups. Acoustic rhinometry, PNIF, and rhinomanometry findings showed no statistically significant breathing difference between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In reduction rhinoplasties, a decrease in the internal volume may be expected as directly proportional with the reduction amount. The decrease in the internal volume may create nasal breathing problems. To prevent it, nasal airflow should be adjusted according to new anatomy. In this study, we discussed "volumetric rhinoplasty" steps to prevent breathing problems in reduction rhinoplasty. Following these steps, not preserving Webster's triangle (low-to-low osteotomy) has no effect on the nasal airway.

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 Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Functional and Radiological Assessment After Preservation Rhinoplasty - A Clinical Study

BACKGROUND/AIM

We hypothesized that improved functional outcome after preservation rhinoplasty can be validated by radiological analyses.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this retrospective study, five patients were included. Radiological assessment was evaluated by cone-beam computed tomography. Patient satisfaction regarding nasal function was evaluated by a Likert scale from 0 to 10 (0=poor result; 10=very satisfied).

RESULTS

After a mean follow-up of 5±1 months (range=4-6 months), significantly improved function was noted by all patients, with a mean Likert scale of 9.2±0.45 (preoperative score=2.8±0.8, p=0.0079). These results are in line with the radiological results, showing an improved internal nasal valve angle (preoperative=26.2°±1.8° vs. postoperative=32.3°±1.2°, p=0.02).

CONCLUSION

Our study showed that besides nasal appearance, nasal function can also be dramatically improved after preservation rhinoplasty.

Impact of endoscopic endonasal pituitary surgery on nasal airway patency

BACKGROUND

Nose is used as a corridor in endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal approach (EETSA) for pituitary adenoma. Thus, it may affect the nasal airway patency, function and sinonasal-related quality of life. The aim of this study is to objectively and subjectively evaluate these effects.

METHODS

In this prospective study, 43 patients with pituitary adenoma who were candidates for EETSA from March 2012 to October 2013 were enrolled. The patients were evaluated preoperatively using acoustic rhinometry and rhinomanometry (with/without the use of decongestant drops) and asked to complete the 22-Item Sinonasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) questionnaire. The tests were repeated at one and three months postoperatively. The preoperative data were compared with the first and second postoperative ones using paired-sample t-test.

RESULTS

Without the use of decongestant drops, the total airway resistance increased significantly (p=0.016), and the nasal airflow decreased significantly (p=0.031) in the first postoperative evaluation. However, in the 3rd postoperative month, the difference was not significant. With the use of decongestant drops, the objective parameters showed no significant changes compared to preoperative data even at the first evaluation. The SNOT- 22 scores also did not differ significantly in 1st and 3rd postoperative months. The first postoperative SNOT-22 showed a strong correlation with the second minimal cross-sectional area on simultaneous evaluation, and with the preoperative total airway resistance.

CONCLUSION

EETSA has a transient adverse effect on the nasal patency that quickly improves, making it a safe approach for the sinonasal system. Rhinomanometry is the most sensitive test for detecting these nasal functional changes objectively.

Does rhinoplasty reduce nasal patency?

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of rhinoplasty on subjective and objective assessment of nasal patency in patients who underwent rhinoplasty for cosmetic reasons only.

SETTING

Tertiary referral center.

DESIGN

Prospective, clinical study.

SUBJECT AND METHODS

A total of 50 adult patients who underwent rhinoplasty were included in the study. Preoperative and postoperative photographs of the nasal profile (frontal, lateral, and oblique) were obtained. The visual analog scale (VAS) was used for the subjective evaluation of nasal obstruction (0 being the minimum, 10 being the maximum amount of nasal patency). Objective evaluation of nasal obstruction was performed with a peak nasal inspiratory flowmeter (PNIF).

RESULTS

Preoperative mean VAS scores and PNIF values of the patients were 7.36 ± 0.83 and 115.10 ± 17.45, respectively. Postoperative mean VAS scores and PNIF values of the patients were 7.42 ± 0.73 and 115.30 ± 16.7, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between any of the pre- and postoperative subjective and objective parameters (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

Reduction rhinoplasty has been shown not to reduce nasal patency.