Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A Comparative Study of Isolated Osteotomies Versus Osteotomies with Spreader Graft Placement to Correct Primary Deviated Nose

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

Abstract

Background

It is a complete objective and subjective comparative study between two techniques of septorhinoplasty in patients undergoing primary rhinoplasty for crooked nose deformity.

Methods

Forty patients having crooked nose deformity were randomly divided into 2 groups exhibiting two different techniques of correction. Patients were randomly divided into 2 group:

Group 1: 20 patients underwent correction of crooked nose by performing bilateral triple osteotomies + Septoplasty

Group 2: 20 patients underwent correction of crooked nose by performing bilateral triple osteotomies as well as placement of spreader grafts + Septoplasty

Objective and subjective assessment of patients in preoperative and postoperative period was done by various scales and scores.

Results

Both the groups showed improvement in facial angles, ROE score, nasal airflow, and NOSE score. But, group 2 patients were more satisfied than group 1 patients in terms of both aesthetic appearance of nose and breathing function.

Conclusion

It is very well known to the authors that aesthetic result of rhinoplasty is not just dependant on one technique. Keeping this in mind, we conclude that as group 2 patients were more satisfied with their overall results, the additional step of spreader graft placement helped these patients with the complaints associated with crooked nose deformity. However, we also emphasize that additional studies on larger numbers of patients should be performed to compare and know other intricacies of each technique that may play minor or major roles in deciding the success of each technique.

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. Rohrich RJ, Gunter JP, Deuber MA, Adams WP Jr (2002) The deviated nose: optimizing results using a simplified classification and algorithmic approach. Plast Reconstr Surg 110:1509–1523

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Gentile P, Bottini DJ, Cervelli V (2008) Rhinoplasty procedures: state of art in plastic surgery. J Craniofac Surg 19:1491–1496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Sheen JH (1984) Spreader graft: a method of reconstructing the roof of the middle nasal vault following rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 73:230–239

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Ghanaatpisheh M, Sajjadian A, Daniel RK (2015) Superior rhinoplasty outcomes with precise nasal osteotomy: an individualized approach for maintaining function and achieving aesthetic goals. Aesthet Surg J 35:28–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Daniel RK (1993) Rhinoplasty Planning. In: Daniel RK, Regnault P (eds) Aesthetic plastic surgery rhinoplasty, lst. Little Brown and Company, Boston, pp 90–93

    Google Scholar 

  6. Leong SC, Abdelkader M, White PS (2008) Changes in nasal aesthetics following nasal bone manipulations. J Laryngol Otol 122:38–41

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Calhoun KH, Stambaugh KI (2006) Facial analysis and pre-operative evaluation. In: Bailey BJ, Johnson JT, Newlands SD (eds) Head and neck surgery—otolaryngology, 4th edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, p 2490

    Google Scholar 

  8. Radulesco T, Penicaud M, Santini L, Thomassin JM, Dessi P, Michel J (2018) Outcomes of septorhinoplasty: a new approach comparing functional and aesthetic results. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 47:175–179

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Gulati SP, Sachdeva OP, Wadhera R, Sodhi N, Garg A (2008) Role of rhinomanometry to assess nasal airflow and resistance in patients undergoing septoplasty. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 60:133–136

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. 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 130:157–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Menegat F, Monnazzi MS, Silva BN, de Moraes M, Gabrielli MA, Pereira-Filho VA (2015) Assessment of nasal obstruction symp-toms using the NOSE scale after surgically assisted rapid maxillary expansion. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 44:1346–1350

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Khullar NK, Nagar RK (2006) Maxillofacial trauma study. Asian J Ear Nose Throat 4:27–29

    Google Scholar 

  13. Erdam T, Ozturan O (2008) Objective measurement of the deviated nose and a review of surgical techniques for correction. Rhinology 46:56–61

    Google Scholar 

  14. Esteves SS, Ferreira MG, Almeida JC, Abrunhosa J, Sousa CAE (2017) Evaluation of aesthetic and functional outcomes in rhinoplasty surgery: a prospective study. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 83:552–557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Zahedi DF, Husain S, Gendeh BS (2016) Functional outcome evaluation of septorhinoplasty for nasal obstruction. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 68:218–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Jessen M, Jacobsson S, Malm L (1988) On rhinometry in rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 81:506–511

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Broms P, Jonson B, Malm L (1982) Rhinomanometry IV. A pre and postoperative evaluation in functional septoplasty. Acta Otolaryngol 94:523–9

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Gurlek A, Celik M, Fariz A, Ersoz-Ozturk A, Eren AT, Tenekeci G et al (2006) The use of high-density porous polyethylene as a custom-made nasal spreader graft. Aesthetic Plast Surg 30:34–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of ENT and Head and Neck Surgery, Shri Guru Ram Rai Institute of Medical and Health Sciences and Associated Shri Mahant Indiresh Hospital, Patel Nagar, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, 248001, India

    Sharad Hernot, Madhuri Kaintura, Tripti Maithani & Rishabh Dogra

  2. Northwest ENT and Rhinoplasty center, Prashant Vihar, Sector 14, Rohini, New Delhi, 110085, India

    Arpit Agrawal

Authors
  1. Sharad Hernot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arpit Agrawal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Madhuri Kaintura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tripti Maithani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Rishabh Dogra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Madhuri Kaintura.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

Ethical clearance from the institute was taken vide no. IEC/91/14. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Consent to Participate

Informed, written, and signed consent was taken from all patients included in the study.

Consent for Publication

Informed, written, and signed consent was taken from all patients included in the study regarding using their photographs and data for publication.

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

Hernot, S., Agrawal, A., Kaintura, M. et al. A Comparative Study of Isolated Osteotomies Versus Osteotomies with Spreader Graft Placement to Correct Primary Deviated Nose. Aesth Plast Surg 46, 818–829 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-021-02531-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-021-02531-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation