Outcome of In Situ Septoplasty and Extracorporeal Subtotal Septal Reconstruction in Crooked Noses: A Randomized Self-Controlled Study

• Published in: Aesthetic plastic surgery Vol. 42; no. 1; pp. 234 - 243
• Main Authors: Gode, Sercan, Benzer, Murat, Uslu, Mustafa, Kaya, Isa, Midilli, Rasit, Karci, Bulent
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York Springer US 01.02.2018; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Adult; Confidence Intervals; Esthetics; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Male; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Nasal Obstruction - diagnosis; Nasal Obstruction - etiology; Nasal Obstruction - surgery; Nasal Septum - abnormalities; Nasal Septum - surgery; Nose - abnormalities; Nose - surgery; Nose Deformities, Acquired - surgery; Odds Ratio; Original Article; Otorhinolaryngology; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative - physiopathology; Plastic Surgery; Prospective Studies; Reconstructive Surgical Procedures - methods; Recovery of Function; Rhinoplasty; Rhinoplasty - methods; Risk Assessment; Surgery; Surgical outcomes; Tertiary Care Centers; Treatment Outcome; Turkey; Young Adult; Turkey; Visual analog scale; Aesthetics; Software; Rhinoplasty; Nasal obstruction; Outcome assessment (health care)
• ISSN: 0364-216X; 1432-5241
• DOI: 10.1007/s00266-017-0973-1

Importance Severe dorsal deviations in crooked noses are treated by either in situ septoplasty with asymmetric spreader grafts (ISS) or extracorporeal subtotal septal reconstruction (ECS). To our knowledge, except one retrospective study, there is no other that compares the objective and subjective results of these two treatment modalities. Objective The aim of this study was to compare the aesthetic and functional outcomes of ECS and ISS in crooked noses. Design, Setting and Participants This study was carried out on 40 patients (ISS in 20 patients and ECS in 20 patients) who underwent external rhinoplasty surgery due to crooked noses between May 2014 and January 2016. While performing rhinoplasty on the patients, the decision of whether to use the ECS or ISS technique was randomized in a sequential fashion. Main Outcomes and Measures Surgical outcomes were assessed and compared using the anthropometric measurement of photographs with Rhinobase software. Subjective assessments of nasal obstruction and aesthetic satisfaction were evaluated with a visual analog scale. Results There was a significant difference between rhinion deviation angle, supratip deviation angle (SDA) and tip deviation angle pre- and postoperatively in the ECS group, whereas in the ISS group, except SDA, all other postoperative angles were significantly improved from preoperative values ( p  = 0.218). The nasal tip projection in the ECS and ISS groups was 29.48, 31.5 preoperatively and 29.78, 31.26 postoperatively. The mean postoperative nasal tip projection value ( p  > 0.005) did not change significantly compared to the preoperative value in both groups. The mean postoperative value of nasolabial ( p  = 0.226) angle did not change significantly compared to the mean preoperative one in the ECS group. However, in the ISS group, the mean postoperative value of nasolabial ( p  = 0.001) angle significantly improved compared to the mean preoperative value. There was significant improvement in both groups, while improvements in both functional and aesthetic outcomes were much higher in the extracorporeal group. None of the patients had postoperative nasal obstruction that required revision surgery. One patient underwent revision rhinoplasty due to an irregularity on the nasal dorsum in the ECS group. Conclusions and Relevance This is the first study that compares subjective and objective aesthetic and functional outcomes of crooked nose surgery according to two common septoplasty techniques in a randomized self-controlled fashion. This study was effective in both objectively and subjectively comparing the functional and aesthetic aspect of the patients submitted to two common different techniques of treatment of nasal deviations in crooked nose patients. 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 .