Severe deviated nose treatment: importance of preserving the dorsal septal remnant
- 22 Downloads
Abstract
Purpose
To compare the surgical outcomes of modified extracorporeal septoplasty and anterior septal reconstruction for the management of the severe deviated nose.
Methods
In a prospective cohort study, we selected 86 patients referred for septorhinoplasty to a tertiary center in May 2015–April 2017 with a primary complaint of nasal obstruction and deformity. They had moderate-to-severe septal deviation and severely deviated noses, particularly in the dorsum. Forty-three patients underwent each procedure. The cohorts were age- and sex-matched, and were operated at a similar time point. Surgical outcome was assessed and compared using anthropometric measurement of photographs, acoustic rhinometry, and The Nasal Obstruction Septoplasty Effectiveness questionnaire (including a visual analog scale).
Results
In all patients, MCA1 (initial minimum cross-sectional area) and MCA2 (minimum cross-sectional area after topical decongestion of the nasal mucosa), anthropometric angles (nasolabial, nasofacial and tip projection), and The Nasal Obstruction Septoplasty Effectiveness questionnaire significantly improved after surgery in both groups (p = 0001), with no significant difference in improvement between two groups. However, anthropometric angles and minimal cross-sectional area were better in anterior septal reconstruction group.
Conclusion
Both methods are effective in patients with a severely deviated nose for correction of deviation and obstruction. Anterior septal reconstruction is the preferable method in patients with more deviation.
Keywords
Septoplasty Rhinoplasty Deviated nose Nasal obstructionNotes
Acknowledgements
This study is supported by Tehran University of Medical Sciences; Grant no.: 94-04-48-31209 and Ethical code: IR.TUMS.REC.1394.1925.
Funding
This study was funded by Tehran University of Medical Sciences; Grant no.: 94-04-48-31209.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
There are no potential conflicts or financial relationships.
Ethical approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee (Ethical code: IR.TUMS.REC.1394.1925), and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
References
- 1.Gubisch W (2005) Extracorporeal septoplasty for the markedly deviated septum. Arch Fac Plast Surg 7:218–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 2.Cho GS, Jang YJ (2013) Deviated nose correction: different outcomes according to the deviation type. Laryngoscope 123:1136–1142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.Song HM, Kim JS, Lee BJ, Jang YJ (2008) Deviated nose cartilage dorsum correction using a dorsal L-strut cutting and suture technique. Laryngoscope 118:981–986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.King ED, Ashley FL (1952) The correction of the internally and externally deviated nose. Plast Reconstr Surg (1946) 10:116–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Most SP (2006) Anterior septal reconstruction: outcomes after a modified extracorporeal septoplasty technique. Arch Fac Plast Surg 8:202–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Surowitz J, Lee MK, Most SP (2015) Anterior septal reconstruction for treatment of severe caudal septal deviation: clinical severity and outcomes. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 153:27–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Wilson MA, Mobley SR (2011) Extracorporeal septoplasty: complications and new techniques. Arch Fac Plast Surg 13:85–90Google Scholar
- 8.Jang YJ, Kwon M (2010) Modified extracorporeal septoplasty technique in rhinoplasty for severely deviated noses. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 119:331–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Sazgar AA, Amali A (2014) Modified extracorporeal septoplasty: using a unilateral curved spreader graft with a septal caudal graft. Ann Plast Surg 73:124–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Lee SB, Jang YJ (2014) Treatment outcomes of extracorporeal septoplasty compared with in situ septal correction in rhinoplasty. JAMA Fac Plast Surg 16:328–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Jang YJ, Wang JH, Lee BJ (2008) Classification of the deviated nose and its treatment. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 134:311–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Mondina M, Marro M, Maurice S, Stoll D, de Gabory L (2012) Assessment of nasal septoplasty using NOSE and RhinoQoL questionnaires. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 269:2189–2195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Erdem T, Ozturan O (2008) Objective measurement of the deviated nose and a review of surgical techniques for correction. Rhinology 46:56–61Google Scholar
- 14.Rudy S, Moubayed SP, Most SP (2017) Lateral wall insufficiency after septal reconstruction. Fac Plast Surg 33:451–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Stewart MG, Smith TL, Weaver EM et al (2004) Outcomes after nasal septoplasty: results from the Nasal Obstruction Septoplasty Effectiveness (NOSE) study. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 130:283–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Kandathil CK, Moubayed SP, Chanasriyotin C, Most SP (2017) Natural history of nasal obstruction symptom evaluation scale following functional rhinoplasty. Fac Plast Surg 33:551–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.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 47:175–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Bloom JD, Kaplan SE, Bleier BS, Goldstein SA (2009) Septoplasty complications: avoidance and management. Otolaryngol Clin N Am 42:463–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar