Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Impact of Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty Versus Dorsal Hump Resection on the Internal Nasal Valve: a Quantitative Radiological Study

  • Original Article
  • Rhinoplasty
  • Published:
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

This study evaluates the impact of different hump takedown techniques, namely the conventional hump resection with midvault reconstruction, the push-down (PD) and the let-down (LD) procedures, on the INV dimensions.

Methods

In this cadaveric study, six heads were divided randomly into either the conventional hump resection technique (Group A; n = 6 sides) or DPR techniques (n = 6 sides). This latter group was subdivided such that initially a PD procedure was performed (Group B; n = 6 sides), followed by a LD procedure on the same heads (Group C; n = 6 sides). A validated radiological method was used to measure the INV angle and cross-sectional area (CSA) in a modified coronal plane both pre- and post-procedurally.

Results

Group A did not show significant reduction in the INV angle nor in CSA (p = 0.068 and p = 0.156, respectively). In the push-down group (B), we observed a mean change of 2.05° in the angles and 0.3 cm2 in the CSA (p = 0.0163 and p < 0.001, respectively). The LD group (C) did not show significant reduction in the INV angle nor in CSA (p = 0.437 and p = 0.331, respectively).

Conclusion

Neither the conventional hump resection nor the LD DPR technique reduced the INV dimensions. However, the PD preservation technique significantly reduced the INV dimensions.

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Estética SI de CP. Levantamento Internacional ISAPS de Estética/Cosmética - Procedimentos Realizados em 2017. Annu ISAPS Int Surv Aesthetic/Cosmetic Proced. 2017. http://www.isaps.org/Media/Default/global-statistics/2015 ISAPS Results.pdf

  2. National S, Bank D (2018) Cosmetic surgery National Data Bank Statistics. Aesthet Surg J 38(3):1–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjy132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Barrett DM, Casanueva F, Wang T (2017) Understanding approaches to the dorsal hump. Facial Plast Surg. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1598033

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. El-Sisi H, Abdelwahab M, Most SP (2019) Association of periosteal sweeping versus periosteal preservation with early periorbital sequelae among patients undergoing external perforating osteotomy during rhinoplasty. JAMA Facial Plast Surg. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamafacial.2018.1730

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Saban Y, Daniel RK, Polselli R, Trapasso M, Palhazi P (2018) Dorsal preservation: the push down technique reassessed. Aesthet Surg J. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjx180

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Joseph J (1971) The classic reprint: nasal reductions. Plast Reconstr Surg 47:79–83

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Cottle MH, Loring RM (1947) Corrective surgery of the external nasal pyramid and the nasal septum for restoration of normal physiology. Eye Ear Nose Throat Mon 26:207–212

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Rohrich RJ, Muzaffar AR, Janis JE (2004) Component dorsal hump reduction: the importance of maintaining dorsal aesthetic lines in rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.PRS.0000135861.45986.CF

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Fomon S, Gilbert JG, Caron AL, Segal S, Collapsed ALA (1950) Pathologic physiology and management. Arch Otolaryngol—Head Neck Surg. https://doi.org/10.1001/archotol.1950.00700020488001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Montes-Bracchini JJ (2019) Nasal profile hump reduction using the let-down technique. Facial Plast Surg 35(5):486–491. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1695751

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Saban Y (2018) Rhinoplasty: lessons from “errors”. HNO 66(1):15–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00106-017-0454-5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Tuncel U, Aydogdu O (2019) The probable reasons for dorsal hump problems following let-down/push-down rhinoplasty and solution proposals. Plast Reconstr Surg 144(3):378e–385e. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000005909

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lothrop OA (1914) An operation for correcting the aquiline nasal deformity; the use of a new instrument; report of a case. Boston Med Surg J 170(22):835–837. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm191405281702205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cottle MH (1954) Nasal roof repair and hump removal. AMA Arch Otolaryngol. https://doi.org/10.1001/archotol.1954.00720010420002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Drumheller GW (1995) The Cottle push down operation. Am J Cosmet Surg. https://doi.org/10.1177/074880689501200307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Saban Y, Braccini F, Polselli R (2006) Rhinoplasty: morphodynamic anatomy of rhinoplasty. Interest of conservative rhinoplasty. Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol 127:15–22

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Gola R, Nerini A, Laurent-Fyon C, Waller PY (1989) Conservative rhinoplasty of the nasal canopy. Ann Chir Plast Esthet 34:465–475

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Huizing EH (1975) Push down of the external nasal pyramid by resection of wedges. Rhinology 13:185–190

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Chandra RK, Patadia MO, Raviv J (2009) Diagnosis of nasal airway obstruction. Otolaryngol Clin N Am. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otc.2009.01.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Rhee JS, Weaver EM, Park SS et al (2010) Clinical consensus statement: diagnosis and management of nasal valve compromise. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otohns.2010.04.019

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Abdelwahab M, Yoon A, Okland T, Poomkonsarn S, Gouveia C, Liu SYC (2019) Impact of distraction osteogenesis maxillary expansion on the internal nasal valve in obstructive sleep apnea. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg (United States). https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599819842808

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Poetker DM, Rhee JS, Mocan BO, Michel MA (2004) Computed tomography technique for evaluation of the nasal valve. Arch Facial Plast Surg. https://doi.org/10.1001/archfaci.6.4.240

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bloom JD, Sridharan S, Hagiwara M, Babba JS, White WM, Constantinides M (2012) Reformatted computed tomography to assess the internal nasal valve and association with physical examination. Arch Facial Plast Surg. https://doi.org/10.1001/archfacial.2012.50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Moubayed SP, Most SP (2016) The autospreader flap for midvault reconstruction following dorsal hump resection. Facial Plast Surg. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0035-1570324

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Daniel RK (2018) The preservation rhinoplasty: a new rhinoplasty revolution. Aesthet Surg J. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjx258

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Osborn JL, Sacks R (2013) Chapter 2: nasal obstruction. Am J Rhinol Allergy. https://doi.org/10.2500/ajra.2013.27.3889

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Miman MC, Deliktaş H, Özturan O, Toplu Y, Akarçay M (2006) Internal nasal valve: revisited with objective facts. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otohns.2005.08.027

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Isaac A, Major M, Witmans M et al (2015) Correlations between acoustic rhinometry, subjective symptoms, and endoscopic findings in symptomatic children with nasal obstruction. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2015.0468

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kassel EE, Kassel RN, Cooper PW (1983) CT of the nasal cavity. J Otolaryngol 12:16–36

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Sipilä J, Suonpää J (1997) A prospective study using rhinomanometry and patient clinical satisfaction to determine if objective measurements of nasal airway resistance can improve the quality of septoplasty. Eur Arch Oto-Rhino-Laryngology. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01642556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Stewart MG, Smith TL (2005) Objective versus subjective outcomes assessment in rhinology. Am J Rhinol. https://doi.org/10.1177/194589240501900518

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Kasperbauer JL, Kern EB (1987) Nasal valve physiology. Implications in nasal surgery. Otolaryngol Clin N Am 20:699–719

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Çakmak Ö, Coşkun M, Çelik H, Büyüklü F, Özlüoǧlu LN (2003) Value of acoustic rhinometry for measuring nasal valve area. Laryngoscope. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005537-200302000-00018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Min YG, Jang YJ (1995) Measurements of cross-sectional area of the nasal cavity by acoustic rhinometry and CT scanning. Laryngoscope. https://doi.org/10.1288/00005537-199507000-00014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Okland TS, Kandathil C, Sanan A, Rudy S, Most SP (2019) Analysis of nasal obstruction patterns following reductive rhinoplasty. Aesthet Plast Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-019-01484-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Erdogan M, Cingi C, Seren E et al (2013) Evaluation of nasal airway alterations associated with septorhinoplasty by both objective and subjective methods. Eur Arch Oto-Rhino-Laryngology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-012-1974-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Yoo S, Most SP (2011) Nasal airway preservation using the autospreader technique: analysis of outcomes using a disease-specific quality-of-life instrument. Arch Facial Plast Surg. https://doi.org/10.1001/archfacial.2011.7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Grymer LF, Gregers-Petersen C, Pedersen HB (1999) Influence of lateral osteotomies in the dimensions of the nasal cavity. Laryngoscope. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005537-199906000-00018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Grymer LF (1995) Reduction rhinoplasty and nasal patency: change in the cross-sectional area of the nose evaluated by acoustic rhinometry. Laryngoscope. https://doi.org/10.1288/00005537-199504000-00017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Guyuron B (1998) Nasal osteotomy and airway changes. Plast Reconstr Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-199809010-00037

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Schlosser RJ, Park SS (1999) Surgery for the dysfunctional nasal valve. Cadaveric analysis and clinical outcomes. Arch facial Plast Surg Off Publ Am Acad Facial Plast Reconstr Surgery, Inc Int Fed Facial Plast Surg Soc. https://doi.org/10.1001/archfaci.1.2.105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Saedi B, Amaly A, Gharavis V, Yekta BG, Most SP (2014) Spreader flaps do not change early functional outcomes in reduction rhinoplasty: a randomized control trial. Am J Rhinol Allergy. https://doi.org/10.2500/ajra.2014.28.3991

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Rudy S, Moubayed SP, Most SP (2017) Midvault reconstruction in primary rhinoplasty. Facial Plast Surg. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0036-1598016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Edizer DT, Erisir F, Alimoglu Y, Gokce S (2013) Nasal obstruction following septorhinoplasty: How well does acoustic rhinometry work? Eur Arch Oto-Rhino-Laryngology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-012-2102-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Kandathil CK, Saltychev M, Abdelwahab M, Spataro EA, Moubayed SP, Most SP (2019) Minimal clinically important difference of the standardized cosmesis and health nasal outcomes survey. Aesthetic Surg J. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjz070

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Saltychev M, Kandathil CK, Abdelwahab M, Spataro EA, Moubayed SP, Most SP (2019) Confirmatory factor analysis of the standardized cosmesis and health nasal outcomes survey. Plast Reconstr Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000005248

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Saltychev M, Kandathil CK, Abdelwahab M, Spataro EA, Moubayed SP, Most SP (2018) Psychometric properties of the standardized cosmesis and health nasal outcomes survey: item response theory analysis. JAMA Facial Plast Surg. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamafacial.2018.0626

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Abdelwahab M, Saltychev M, Elkholy NA, Elsisi H, Moubayed SP, Most SP (2019) Arabic validation of the standardized cosmesis and health nasal outcome survey for Arabic-speaking rhinoplasty patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000005357

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Moubayed SP, Ioannidis JPA, Saltychev M, Most SP (2018) The 10-item Standardized Cosmesis and Health Nasal Outcomes Survey (SCHNOS) for functional and cosmetic rhinoplasty. JAMA Facial Plast Surg. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamafacial.2017.1083

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Casanueva F, Gerecci D, Cardemil F (2018) Hemitransdomal versus dome-binding suture. Facial Plast Surg. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0036-1598014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Jeong J, Terence G, Kim J (2018) Understanding the anatomy of the transverse nasalis aponeurotic fibers and its importance in Asian rhinoplasty. Ann Plast Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000001564

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Vachhani K, Lapaine P, Samiezadeh S, Whyne CM, Fialkov JA (2018) The impact of surgical manipulation on lower lateral cartilage stiffness. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2018.07.026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Stewart MG, Witsell DL, Smith TL, Weaver EM, Yueh B, Hannley MT (2004) Development and validation of the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) Scale. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otohns.2003.09.016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Kandathil CK, Saltychev M, Abdelwahab M, Spataro EA, Moubayed SP, Most SP (2019) Minimal clinically important difference of the standardized cosmesis and health nasal outcomes survey. Aesthet Surg J. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjz070

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding was provided by Egyptian Cultural and Educational Bureau.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, 801 Welch Road, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA

    Mohamed A. Abdelwahab, Caio A. Neves, Priyesh N. Patel & Sam P. Most

  2. Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Mansoura University, Faculty of Medicine, Mansoura, Egypt

    Mohamed A. Abdelwahab

  3. Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, University of Brasília, Faculty of Medicine, Brasília, Brazil

    Caio A. Neves

Authors
  1. Mohamed A. Abdelwahab
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Caio A. Neves
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Priyesh N. Patel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sam P. Most
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sam P. Most.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Ethical Approval

Institutional review board waiver was obtained.

Informed Consent

For this type of study, informed consent is not required.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abdelwahab, M.A., Neves, C.A., Patel, P.N. et al. Impact of Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty Versus Dorsal Hump Resection on the Internal Nasal Valve: a Quantitative Radiological Study. Aesth Plast Surg 44, 879–887 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-020-01627-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-020-01627-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation