Role of Spreader Flaps in Rhinoplasty: Analysis of Patients Undergoing Correction for Severe Septal Deviation with Long-Term Follow-Up

Abstract

Introduction

The aim of this randomized controlled study was to analyze the long-term results of patients undergoing rhinoplasty because of severe septal deviation and to evaluate the stability of results.

Materials and Methods

The study was performed with a randomized design. Patients were randomly divided into four groups: group 1, spreader flaps were used in combination with spreader grafts; group 2, spreader flaps were used alone; group 3, spreader grafts were used alone; and group 4, neither spreader flaps nor grafts flaps were used. Patients answered the Italian version of the FACE-Q rhinoplasty module. Anthropometric measurements were performed by AutoCAD for MAC. We determined the angle of deviation, and we compared the pre- and postoperative angles and compared patient satisfaction in the four groups using the Chi-squared test for unpaired data. Two plastic surgeons reviewed all the postoperative photographs of the study patients and rated the photographs on a scale of 1 to 5.

Results

A total of 264 patients who underwent primary rhinoplasty between January 2010 and September 2016 satisfied the inclusion criteria and were finally enrolled in this study. Anthropometric measurements revealed statistically significant differences (P < 0.01) between the preoperative and postoperative values for the angle of septal deviation in group 1 versus the other groups. Over the long-term follow-up, group 1 maintained an angle close to 180 degrees (P < 0.01). Group 1 and group 3 were more satisfied compared with groups 2 and 4 (P < 0.01). According to evaluations by the 2 reviewers, group 1 and group 3 were the most satisfactory outcomes (P < 0.01).

Conclusions

This was the first randomized study to show that the combined use of the spreader flap and spreader graft is the best choice for a good long-term outcome and durable correction of septal deviation.

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.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. 1.

    East C, Kwame I, Hannan SA (2016) Revision rhinoplasty: what can we learn from error patterns? an analysis of revision surgery. Facial Plast Surg 32(4):409–415

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Calvert JW, Patel AC, Daniel RK (2014) Reconstructive rhinoplasty: operative revision of patients with previous autologous costal cartilage grafts. Plast Reconstr Surg 133:1087–1096

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Kridel RW, Soliemanzadeh P (2006) Tip grafts in revision rhinoplasty. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 14(331–41):vi

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Calvert JW, Patel AC, Daniel RK (2014) Reconstructive rhinoplasty: operative revision of patients with previous autologous costal cartilage grafts. Plast Reconstr Surg 133:1087–1096

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Wu PS, Hamilton GS 3rd (2016) Extracorporeal septoplasty: external and endonasal techniques. Facial Plast Surg 32(1):22–28

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Atespare A, Boyaci Z (2016) The use of spreader grafts in revision septoplasty. J Craniofac Surg 27:1656–1660

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Most SP, Rudy SF (2017) Septoplasty: basic and advanced techniques. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 25:161–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Kim DY, Nam SH, Alharethy SE, Jang YJ (2017) Surgical outcomes of bony batten grafting to correct caudal septal deviation in septoplasty. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 19:470–475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Klassen AF, Cano SJ, East CA, Baker SB, Badia L, Schwitzer JA, Pusic AL (2016) Development and psychometric evaluation of the FACE-Q scales for patients undergoing rhinoplasty. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 18:27–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Schwitzer JA, Sher SR, Fan KL, Scott AM, Gamble L, Baker SB (2015) Assessing patient-reported satisfaction with appearance and quality of life following rhinoplasty using the FACE-Q appraisal scales. Plast Reconstr Surg 135(5):830e–837e

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Mladina R (1987) The role of maxillar morphology in the development of pathological septal deformities. Rhinology 25:199–205

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Cottle MH, Loring RM, Fischer GG, Gaynon IE (1958) The maxilla-premaxilla approach to extensive nasal septum surgery. AMA Arch Otolaryngol 68:301–313

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Barone M, Cogliandro A, Di Stefano N, Aronica R, Tambone V, Persichetti P (2017) Linguistic validation of the “FACE-Q Rhinoplasty Module” in Italian. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 274(3):1771–1772

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    https://www.autodesk.com/products/autocad/overview. Accessed 11 Oct 2018

  15. 15.

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

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Ismail A, Hussein W, Elwany S (2018) Combining spreader grafts with suture suspension for management of narrow internal nasal valve angles. Turk Arch Otorhinolaryngol 56:25–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Görgülü T, Özer CM, Kargi E (2015) The accordion suture technique: a modified rhinoplasty spreader flap. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 43(6):796–802

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Oneal RM, Berkowitz RL (1998) Upper lateral cartilage spreader flaps in rhinoplasty. Aesthet Surg J 37:371

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Seyhan A (1997) Method for middle vault reconstruction in primary rhinoplasty: upper lateral cartilage bending. Plast Reconstr Surg 100:1941

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Lerma J (1995) Reconstruction of the middle vault: the “lapel” technique. Cir Plast Ibero Latinoam 21:207

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Rohrich RJ (1999) Treatment of the nasal hump with preservation of the cartilaginous framework (Discussion). Plast Reconstr Surg 103:173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Guyuron B, Uzzo CD, Scull H (1999) A practical classification of septonasal deviation and an effective guide to septal surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 104:2202

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    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 Allergy 28:70–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Fayman MS, Potgieter E (2004) Nasal middle vault support: a new technique. Aesthetic Plast Surg 28:375

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Boccieri A, Macro C, Pascali M (2005) The use of spreader grafts in primary rhinoplasty. Ann Plast Surg 55:127–131

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Arslan E, Aksoy A (2007) Upper lateral cartilage-sparing component dorsal hump reduction in primary rhinoplasty. Laryngoscope 117:990–996

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Byrd HS, Meade RA, Gonyon DL Jr (2007) Using the autospreader flap in primary rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 119:1897–1902

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Moubayed SP, Most SP (2016) The autospreader flap for midvault reconstruction following dorsal hump resection. Facial Plast Surg 32(1):36–41

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Kovacevic M, Wurm J (2015) Spreader flaps for middle vault contour and stabilization. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 23(1):1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Wurm J, Kovacevic M (2013) A new classification of spreader flap techniques. Facial Plast Surg 29:506–514

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Sowder JC, Thomas AJ, Gonzalez CD, Limaye NS, Ward PD (2017) Use of spreader flaps without dorsal hump reduction and the effect on nasal function. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 19(4):287–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Guo BY, Liao DH, Li XY, Zeng YJ, Yang QH (2007) Age and gender related changes in biomechanical properties of healthy human costal cartilage. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 22(3):292–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Alkan Z, Acioglu E, Yigit O, Bekem A, Azizli E, Unal A, Sahin F (2012) Determining the most suitable costal cartilage level for rhinoplasty: an experimental study. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 146(3):377–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Griffin MF, Premakumar Y, Seifalian AM, Szarko M, Butler PE (2016) Biomechanical characterisation of the human auricular cartilages; implications for tissue engineering. Ann Biomed Eng 44:3460–3467

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Eames BF, Schneider RA (2008) The genesis of cartilage size and shape during development and evolution. Development 135:3947–3958

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mauro Barone.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

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

Ethical Approval

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of our University.

Informed Consent

Each study patient provided written informed consent before participating in the study.

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

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Barone, M., Cogliandro, A., Salzillo, R. et al. Role of Spreader Flaps in Rhinoplasty: Analysis of Patients Undergoing Correction for Severe Septal Deviation with Long-Term Follow-Up. Aesth Plast Surg 43, 1006–1013 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-019-01343-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • FACE-Q
  • NOSE-Q
  • Rhinoplasty
  • Nose
  • Spreader flap
  • Graft