Advertisement

One-Piece Nasal Osteotomy for the Correction of a Centrally Deviated Nose

  • Jong Woo Choi
  • Min Ji Kim
  • Woo Shik Jeong
Original Article Rhinoplasty
  • 66 Downloads

Abstract

Background

A severely crooked nose due to trauma or other causes is difficult to correct. Although various nasal osteotomy techniques have been suggested, satisfactory outcomes have not always been achieved especially in centrally deviated noses. Definite correction of the midline and shape of the bony framework is necessary. We aimed to investigate a novel one-piece nasal bone osteotomy approach consisting of transverse osteotomy continued with bilateral lateral osteotomies for the correction of a centrally deviated nose.

Methods

This retrospective chart review included 66 consecutive patients who underwent corrective rhinoplasty with nasal bone osteotomy for a deviated nose. Group 1 was treated with one-piece osteotomy, and group 2 was treated with conventional lateral and/or medial osteotomy. Available preoperative and postoperative three-dimensional facial bone computed tomography images were used to quantify nasal landmarks through three-dimensional reconstruction. Patient satisfaction was evaluated using a rhinoplasty outcome evaluation questionnaire.

Results

Measurements of nasal landmark angles toward the longitudinal facial midline plane showed a statistically narrowed postoperative angle in group 1 (subnasale landmark: preoperative angle 1.66 ± 0.29° [group 1] vs. 0.76 ± 1.09° [group 2]; postoperative angle 0.96 ± 0.77° [group 1] vs. 0.31 ± 0.29° [group 2]). The questionnaire scores revealed higher satisfaction (3.11 ± 2.38 vs. 1.157 ± 1.147) and a higher proportion of 4-point scores in group 1.

Conclusions

This is the first study to introduce the one-piece nasal osteotomy technique for centrally deviated noses. The technique consists of transverse osteotomy with bilateral osteotomies in one stage, thus the name “one-piece.” Considering anatomic variances in Asian rhinoplasty, a deviated nose should be effectively corrected to obtain satisfactory outcomes. We demonstrated the efficacy and satisfactory outcomes of this new technique.

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.

Keywords

Osteotomy Rhinoplasty Corrective rhinoplasty Deviated nose 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Ching S, Thoma A, McCabe RE, Antony MM (2003) Measuring outcomes in aesthetic surgery: a comprehensive review of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg 111:469–482CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lohr KN (2002) Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteria. Qual Life Res 11:193–205CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alsarraf R (2000) Outcomes research in facial plastic surgery: a review and new directions. Aesthet Plast Surg 24:192–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alsarraf R, Larrabee WF, Anderson S, Murakami CS, Johnson CM (2001) Measuring cosmetic facial plastic surgery outcomes: a pilot study. Arch Facial Plast Surg 3:198–201CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Izu SC, Kosugi EM, Brandão KV, Lopes AS, Garcia LBS, Suguri VM, Gregório LC (2012) Normal values for the rhinoplasty outcome evaluation (ROE) questionnaire. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 78:76–79CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bulut O, Wallner F, Hohenberger R, Plinkert P, Baumann I (2017) Quality of life after primary septorhinoplasty in deviated-and non-deviated nose measured with ROE, FROI-17 and SF-36. Rhinology 55:75–80CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Potter JK (2012) Correction of the crooked nose. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin N Am 24:95–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kosins AM, Daniel RK, Nguyen DP (2016) Rhinoplasty: the asymmetric crooked nose-an overview. Facial Plast Surg 32:361–373CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Inanli S, Binnetoglu A (2016) A combined approach to crooked nose deformity. Aesthet Plast Surg 40:360–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    VanKoevering KK, Rosko AJ, Moyer JS (2017) Osteotomies demystified. Facial Plast Surg Clin 25:201–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wayne I (2013) Osteotomies in rhinoplasty surgery. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 21:379–383PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Frodel JL Jr (2015) The role of transverse osteotomies in severe nasal trauma. Facial Plast Surg 31:252–258CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Poorey VK, Gupta N (2014) Endoscopic and computed tomographic evaluation of influence of nasal septal deviation on lateral wall of nose and its relation to sinus diseases. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 66:330–335CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lee JE, Jung HJ, Chang M, Jin HR (2014) A novel wedge technique to correct the curved deviation of the cartilaginous nasal septum. Auris Nasus Larynx 41:190–194CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Loyo M, Wang TD (2015) Management of the deviated nasal dorsum. Facial Plast Surg 31:216–227CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cerkes N (2011) The crooked nose: principles of treatment. Aesthet Surg J 31:241–257CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Asan Medical CenterUniversity of Ulsan College of MedicineSeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations