Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

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

Abstract

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.

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
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hussein WK, Elwany S, Montaser M (2015) Modified autospreader flap for nasal valve support: utilizing the spring effect of the upper lateral cartilage. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 272(2):497–504

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Eweiss A (2023) Is there a risk of saddle nose deformity after spreader grafts and flaps? Facial Plast Surg 39(1):77–85

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Poetker DM, Rhee JS, Mocan BO, Michel MA (2004) Computed tomography technique for evaluation of the nasal valve. Arch Facial Plast Surg 6(4):240–243

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Weeks DM, Walker DD, Dutton JM (2012) Anatomical comparison of minimally invasive nasal valve procedures. Arch Facial Plast Surg 14(3):189–192

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Uebel CO, Matta R (2017) Alar cartilage-an alternative for spreader graft in primary rhinoplasty. Eur J Plast Surg 40(5):417–426

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Buba CM, Patel PN, Saltychev M, Kandathil CK, Most SP (2022) The safety and efficacy of spreader grafts and autospreaders in rhinoplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Aesthetic Plast Surg 46(4):1741–1759

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Pepper JP, Baker SR (2011) The autospreader flap in reduction rhinoplasty. Arch Facial Plast Surg 13(3):172

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. AlAwadh IH, Bogari A, Assiri H, Alabduljabbar Z, AlNassar R, Hudise J, AlArfaj A (2022) A novel technique for spreader flap by folding the dorsal hump in patients undergoing primary rhinoplasty. J Craniofac Surg 33(8):2653–2658

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Saedi B, Amali 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 Allerg 28(1):70–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gerbault O (2019) Commentary on: the composite spreader flap. Aesthet Surg J 39(2):148–149

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Keyhan SO, Fallahi HR, Cheshmi B, Jafari Modrek M, Ramezanzade S, Sadeghi E (2022) Spreader graft vs spreader flap in rhinoplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of aesthetic and functional outcomes. Aesthet Surg J 42(6):590–602

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gruber RP, Melkun ET, Woodward JF, Perkins SW (2011) Dorsal reduction and spreader flaps. Aesthet Surg J 31(4):456–464

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Apaydin F (2016) Rebuilding the middle vault in rhinoplasty: a new classification of spreader flaps/grafts. Facial Plast Surg 32(6):638–645

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gerecci D, Perkins SW (2019) The use of spreader grafts or spreader flaps-or not-in hump reduction rhinoplasty. Facial Plast Surg 35(5):467–475

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Grigoryants V, Baroni A (2013) The use of short spreader grafts in rhinoplasty for patients with thick nasal skin. Aesthetic Plast Surg 37(3):516–520

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sirinoglu H, Yesiloglu N, Ersoy B (2016) A new perspective for spreader graft use in severely deviated septum: is septal continuity an obligation for a stable and straight nasal septum? Facial Plast Surg 32(4):460–468

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Bitik O, Kamburoglu HO, Uzun H (2019) The composite spreader flap. Aesthet Surg J 39(2):137–147

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Shafaeei Y, Zare NJ (2019) A comparison of the aesthetics outcomes and respiratory side effects of the use of spreader flap and spreader graft techniques in open rhinoplasty. J Craniofac Surg 30(8):2546–2548

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Karameşe M, Akdağ O, Akatekin A, Koplay TG, Koplay M, Tosun Z (2016) Extracorporeal septoplasty combined with valve surgery in rhinoplasty patients. Ann Plast Surg 76(1):7–12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bloom JD, Sridharan S, Hagiwara M, Babb JS, White WM, Constantinides M (2012) Reformatted computed tomography to assess the internal nasal valve and association with physical examination. Arch Facial Plast Surg 14(5):331–335

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hassanpour SE, Heidari A, Moosavizadeh SM, Tarahomi MGoljanian A, Tavakoli S (2016) Comparison of aesthetic and functional outcomes of spreader graft and autospreader flap in rhinoplasty. World J Plast Surg 5(2):133–138

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Zeid NG, Mohamed AS, ElSayed ElFM, Azooz KO, Aleryan MM, Abd Elmottaleb Sabaa M (2020) Objective comparison between spreader grafts and flaps for mid-nasal vault reconstruction: a randomized controlled trial. Plast Surg 28(3):137–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

None

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Konya City Hospital, Konya, Turkey

    Tugba Gun Koplay

  2. Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Private Clinic, Konya, Turkey

    Irfan Inan

  3. Medical Faculty, Department of Radiology, Selcuk University, Konya, Turkey

    Halil Ozer

Authors
  1. Tugba Gun Koplay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Irfan Inan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Halil Ozer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tugba Gun Koplay.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of ınterest

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

Human and Animal Rights

This manuscript does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed Consent

Informed consent form was obtained from the patients.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Koplay, T.G., Inan, I. & Ozer, H. Comparison of the Effects of Spreader Graft Versus Spreader Flap on Nasal Valve Angle in Open Approach Rhinoplasty. Aesth Plast Surg 47, 2625–2631 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-023-03598-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-023-03598-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation